Armstrong v. U.S.

Full title: JAMES ARMSTRONG, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: May 26, 2005

Civil No. 1:CV-05-0771 (M.D. Pa. May. 26, 2005)

Opinion

Civil No. 1:CV-05-0771.

May 26, 2005

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SYLVIA RAMBO, Senior District Judge

Before the court is a May 10, 2005, report of the magistrate judge in which he recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or, in the alternative, that the petition be denied on the merits. Petitioner has filed objections to the report and recommendation.

Petitioner, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary at Allenwood, Pennsylvania, challenges the Bureau of Prisons' calculations of his good time credits under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3624(b). He further argues that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. The court will dismiss the petition on its merits.

Petitioner, in his objections to the report and recommendation, cites cases that are not applicable to this case. He totally ignores a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case which is binding on this court. In O'Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2005), the court upheld the Bureau of Prisons' interpretation of § 3624(b). Furthermore, in Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1269-70 (9^th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1105 (2002), that court also found the Bureau of Prisons' interpretation of § 3624(b) to be correct and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

The magistrate judge's recommendation is correct. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1) The court adopts the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Blewitt.

2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED on the merits.

3) The Clerk of Court shall close the file.