Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV210-142.
August 29, 2011
ORDER
After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections have been filed. In his Objections, Petitioner Patrick Brantley ("Brantley") states that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly found that he did not present evidence that his claims are based on retroactively applicable Supreme Court decisions. Brantley asserts that his claims rest on two (2) Supreme Court decisions which interpreted the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and not any new rule of constitutional law. Finally, Brantley objects to the Magistrate Judge's failure to address his retroactivity assertions.
Brantley's Objections underscore his inability to proceed with his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is apparent Brantley is attempting to use section 2241 as a way to circumvent the procedural limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Brantley's Objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Brantley's petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.