Opinion
Case No. 5:20-cv-00729
11-17-2020
DONALD REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. D.L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). This matter is assigned to the Honorable Frank W. Volk, United States District Judge, and it is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 6, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) requesting declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of his constitutional rights surrounding the processing of his inmate mail and his inmate grievances. Specifically, he requests release or return of his mail that he claims has been withheld from delivery. Petitioner does not seek release from incarceration or any relief that would affect the fact or duration of his detention.
By separate Order and Notice, the undersigned has advised Petitioner that the claims raised in his petition are not addressable in habeas corpus but, rather, are more appropriately brought, if at all, in a civil rights complaint pursuant to the holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 24 L. Ed.2d 619 (1971). Accordingly, the undersigned directed the opening of a separate civil action to appropriately address those civil rights claims.
RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned proposes that the presiding District Judge FIND that the issues raised in the petitioner's section 2241 petition concerning his inmate mail and grievances are not appropriately raised in a section 2241 habeas corpus proceeding, and those same issues may be addressed in the petitioner's separate Bivens action. Therefore, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the presiding District Judge DISMISS the instant matter, without prejudice.
The petitioner is notified that this Proposed Findings and Recommendation is hereby FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable Frank W. Volk, United States District Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), Rules 6(d) and 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules 1(b) and 8(b) of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States District Courts Under Section 2254 of Title 28, United States Code, the parties shall have fourteen days (filing of objections) and then three days (service/mailing) from the date of filing this Proposed Findings and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Proposed Findings and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection. Extension of this time period may be granted by the presiding District Judge for good cause shown.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Copies of such objections shall be served on Judge Volk.
The Clerk is directed to file this Proposed Findings and Recommendation and to mail a copy of the same to the petitioner.
November 17, 2020
/s/_________
Dwane L. Tinsley
United States Magistrate Judge