Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-62
02-21-2017
ROBERT KENNETH BRINSON, Petitioner, v. TERRY O'BRIEN, Respondent.
(BAILEY)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi [Doc. 29]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Aloi filed his R&R on January 26, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court grant the petitioner's § 2241 petition.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which 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 findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour , 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Aloi's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The docket reflects that service was accepted by the petitioner on January 30, 2017 [Doc. 10]. The petitioner timely filed his Objections on February 13, 2017 [Doc. 31]. This Court notes that the R&R is favorable to the petitioner. The respondent has failed to file any objections. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
This Court notes the petitioner's filing does not actually seek any relief or make any specific objections. Rather, petitioner requests clarification of portions of the R&R. As the petitioner has received the requested relief, this Court finds it unnecessary to attempt to further interpret the R&R or simplify the reasoning contained therein. --------
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 29] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. The Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] is DENIED. Accordingly, this Court GRANTS the petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1]. Accordingly, for the reasons thoroughly set out in the R&R, this Court hereby directs the BOP to recalculate the petitioner's sentence to award him credit for the time spent in State custody after September 23, 1993 against the 87-month sentence imposed by the District of South Carolina and the 240-month sentence imposed by the Western District of North Carolina. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the petitioner and to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to the BOP and any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.
DATED: February 21, 2017.
/s/ _________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE