Summary
In Burke, an Ohio inmate brought a constitutional challenge to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's [“ODRC”] cancelation of his early release on PRC after he participated in the Intensive Prison Program [“IPP”].
Summary of this case from Pullen v. CaldwellOpinion
CASE NO. 2:07-cv-665.
September 26, 2008
OPINION AND ORDER
On September 5, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. Petitioner has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Petitioner objects to all of the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and recommendations. He again raises all of the arguments he previously presented. Petitioner again argues at length that he was denied due process when the parole board refused to grant him early release upon successful participation in the Intensive Prison Program. Referring to usage of the word "shall" in the statute, petitioner again contends that he had a protected liberty interest in early release and that the parole board was without authority to rescind.
Petitioner refers to the following language in O.R.C. 5120.032(B)(1)(b):
(b) The department may reduce the stated prison term of a prisoner upon the prisoner's successful completion of a ninety-day period in an intensive program prison. A prisoner whose term has been so reduced shall be required to serve an intermediate, transitional type of detention followed by a release under post-release control sanctions or, in the alternative, shall be placed under post-release control sanctions, as described in division (B)(2)(b)(ii) of section 5120.031 of the Revised Code. In either case, the placement under post-release control sanctions shall be under terms set by the parole board in accordance with section 2967.28 of the Revised Code and shall be subject to the provisions of that section and section 2929.141 of the Revised Code with respect to a violation of any post-release control sanction.Id. (Emphasis added).
Petitioner's arguments are not persuasive. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Upon careful consideration of the entire record, for the reasons detailed in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this Court likewise concludes that petitioner's claims are without merit. His objections are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.