Opinion
Case No. 5:06-CV-113-SPM.
October 19, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 14) filed October 5, 2006. The parties have been furnished a copy and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. Petitioner filed a "Notice of Appeal and Objection to District Judge" (doc. 15) and a "Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel" (doc. 16), both filed October 16, 2006. The "Notice of Appeal and Objection to District Judge" will be treated as an objection to the magistrate's report and recommendation. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made.
Petitioner alleges that the report's findings were contrary to law because "there was no substantial reason to be denied for what my argument is about." He goes on to say that "I feel it was misconstrued to result to anything else but GRANTED." See doc. 15. Upon reviewing the report and recommendation, I find that the magistrate correctly concluded that Petitioner is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence. The Bureau of Prisons' ability to reduce a sentence for successful completion of a drug treatment program is a discretionary ability; the reduction is not required by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). In any event, Petitioner is not eligible for early release because he was convicted of an offense involving the carrying, use or possession of a firearm. 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B). Petitioner has shown no error in the report and recommendation. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 14) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 5) is denied with prejudice.
3. The motion for appointment of counsel (doc. 16) is denied as moot.
4. This case is hereby dismissed.
DONE AND ORDERED.