Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 6:16-cr-00022-CHB-HAI-1
12-06-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIE MCCLOUD, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CLARIA HORN BOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Recommended Disposition entered in this matter by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. [R. 116]. The Recommended Disposition addresses the pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence, [R. 113], filed by Defendant Willie McCloud (“Defendant”). In the Motion to Reduce Sentence, Defendant notes his February 14, 2023 release date and requests “a Reduction In Sentence so [he] can be released immediately to start [his] supervised release.” [R. 13, at p. 2]. On November 7, 2022, the Court referred the Motion to Reduce Sentence to the Magistrate Judge for a recommended disposition, [R. 112], and the Magistrate Judge entered his Recommended Disposition on November 17, 2022. [R. 116]. In Recommended Disposition, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the reasons Defendant offers in support of his request:
Defendant indicates that he has completed BOP classes such as RDAP and the Automotive Vocational Training Program. D.E. 113 at 1. Defendant states that he has requested placement in a halfway house through his case manager, but he has not received a transition date. Id. Defendant further states that he has sent “cop-outs” to his chain of command, but has not received a response. Id.Id. at p.
The Magistrate Judge found that Defendant has not identified any legal authority that would warrant revisiting [the Court]'s previous orders or otherwise allow him to obtain the relief he seeks.” Id. See [R. 103; R. 107] (orders respectively denying Defendant's motion for compassionate release, [R. 100], and motion for reconsideration of the denial of compassionate release, [R104]). The Magistrate Judge further found:
To the extent Defendant is seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), the decision to reduce a prisoner's sentence after his successful completion of RDAP is at the sole discretion of the BOP. See United States v. Stewart, Criminal Action No. 5:01-CR-38, 2022 WL 5212859, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 5, 2022) (holding that section 3621(e) “still affords the Bureau complete discretion to require Petitioner to serve his full sentence”) (quoting Kmet v. Sec'y of D.H.S., No. CV 19-19307 (RBK), 2020 WL 1685610, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2020)). Thus, Defendant cannot obtain a sentence reduction under § 3621(e) through this Court.[R. 116, at pp. 1-2].
The Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition advised the parties that any objections must be filed with fourteen days. Id. at 2. The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the Recommended Disposition nor sought an extension of time to do so. Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report & Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate [judge]'s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that recommended disposition. United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition. Accordingly, the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition [R. 116] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
2. Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence [R. 113] is DENIED.