Opinion
Civil Action 5:24-CV-136
08-28-2024
RAYMOND KORNEGAY, Plaintiff, v. (W) R. BROWN, Defendant.
ORDER
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mazzone. [Doc. 5], Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on July 24,2024, wherein he recommends that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. [Id.] For the reasons that follow, this Court will adopt the R&R.
I. BACKGROUND & STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court fully adopts and incorporates herein the “Background” section of the R&R. See [Doc. 5 at 1-2].
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). Nor is this Court required to conduct a de novo review when the party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
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). Pro se filings must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by licensed attorneys, however, courts are not required to create objections where none exist. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1971).
Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Mazzone's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner timely filed his Objection to the Report and Recommendations [Doc. 11] on August 26, 2024. In addition to his objections, petitioner also included a Motion to Amend. [Id.]. Accordingly, this Court will review the portions of the R&R to which objection was filed under a de novo standard of review. The remainder of the R&R will be reviewed for clear error.
II. DISCUSSION
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Mazzone found that the Petition should be dismissed with prejudice because the determinations for which relief is sought in this matter “are not reviewable by this Court.” See [Doc. 5 at 5]. Petitioner seeks review of his recidivism level and a reduction of that level from “medium” to “low” or “minimum.” [Doc. 11]. Petitioner is seeking that reduction in order to be eligible to have time credits applied under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g). [Id.]. A prisoner's PATTERN Score and recidivism level are decisions made under § 3624 and are therefore not reviewable by this Court. [Doc. 5 (citing Nevel v. Brown, No. 5:23-CV-285, 2023 WL 8505881, at *6 (N.D. W.Va. Oct. 27, 2023) (Mazzone, M.J.))].
In his Objections, petitioner advances the argument that Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo “abrogates the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation.” See [Doc. 11 at 1-2 (citing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 2244 (2024)]. This Court disagrees. The decision in Loper Bright Enterprises only alters the requirement of courts to defer to agencies in the interpretation of ambiguous statutes, and does not invalidate reports and recommendations issued by courts. Id.
Petitioner further argues that he should have the ability to amend his pleading to avoid a dismissal with prejudice in this case. [Doc. 11]. Petitioner argues that Magistrate Judge Mazzone's report and recommendation reasoned that the petition did not conform with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Id.]. This Court disagrees. It was not a procedural deficiency, but a substantive deficiency in the claim that caused Magistrate Judge Mazzone to recommend dismissal. See [Doc. 5]. Therefore, the arguments that this Court should allow petitioner to cure procedural defects or amend the Petition are not relevant.
The relief sought in this case is a review of a decision not within the Court's power to review, therefore the Petition will be denied and dismissed.
III. CONCLUSION
Aside from the arguments addressed herein, a de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [Doc. 5] is hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Petitioner's Response/Objections [Doc. 11] are OVERRULED and the Motion to Amend within the objections is DENIED. The Petition [Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk 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 any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.