Summary
stating that "[u]nder these new regulations, an inmate presents a valid claim only if he is denied individual consideration based on § 3621(b) factors"
Summary of this case from Bushey v. ButlerOpinion
Civil Action No.: 4:09-cv-0191-TLW-TER.
March 5, 2010
ORDER
Petitioner, Jay Specter ("petitioner"), brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. #1). On May 4, 2009, the respondents filed a motion to deny the habeas petition. (Doc. #17). The petitioner filed a response in opposition, as well as two supplemental affidavits. (Doc. #22, #23, #24). The respondent filed a reply on May 26, 2009. (Doc. #25). The petitioner then filed a sur reply on June 4, 2009. (Doc. #26).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #44). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant the respondents' motion to deny the habeas petition and dismiss the petition in this action. (Doc. #44). The petitioner filed objections to the report. (Doc. #49). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. #44). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the respondents' motion to deny the habeas petition in this case, (Doc. #17), is hereby GRANTED, and the petition in this case is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.