IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DELROY CHANCE, :

:

Petitioner : No. 4:04-CV-2120

:

v. : Petition Filed 9/23/04

:

RONNIE HOLT, WARDEN : (Judge Muir)

:

:

Respondents :

ORDER

April 26, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On September 23, 2004, Petitioner Delroy Chance, an

inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution-Schuylkill,

Minersville, Pennsylvania, filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Chance was convicted of

several offenses in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Ohio, including conspiracy to distribute

cocaine, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 30 years. 

After an appeal his sentence was reduced to a term of

imprisonment of 20 years. In the present action Chance contends

that the Bureau of Prisons has incorrectly computed his Good

Conduct Time. Specifically, Chance claims that the Bureau of

Prisons should be giving him 54 days per year of Good Conduct

Time, for a total award of 54 days multiplied by the 20 years of

his sentence. The Bureau of Prisons takes the position that

under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) Good Conduct Time is awarded prisoners

Case 4:04-cv-02120-MM Document 14 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 4
2

after the actual service of a year, not prior to service. This

case was assigned to us but referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas

M. Blewitt for preliminary consideration. 

On March 4, 2005, Magistrate Judge Blewitt filed a

report recommending that Chance’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus be denied.

On March 14, 2005, Chance filed objections to the

report. The Local Rules of Court require that a brief in support

be filed along with the objections. A recent review of the file

reveals that no brief in support has been filed. We could deem

the objections withdrawn for that reason but we will instead

review the merits of Chance’s objections. We will not require

briefing because the Court of Appeals for this circuit has

recently addressed the issues raised in Chance’s objections.

When objections are filed to a report of a magistrate

judge, we make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by

the magistrate judge to which there are objections. United

States vs. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (l980); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(l);

Local Rule 72.3l. Furthermore, district judges have wide

discretion as to how they treat recommendations of the magistrate

judge. Id. Indeed, in providing for a de novo review

determination rather than a de novo hearing, Congress intended to

permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of

sound discretion, chooses to place on a magistrate judge's

proposed findings and recommendations. Id. See also Mathews vs.

Case 4:04-cv-02120-MM Document 14 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 4
3

Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (l976); Goney vs. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7

(3d Cir. l984).

The Bureau of Prisons interprets § 3624(b) as allowing

54 days of Good Conduct Time “for each year served.” 28 C.F.R. §

523.20. The formula used by the BOP to calculate Good Conduct

Time takes into account the fact that an inmate’s time actually

served becomes incrementally shorter each year as the inmate is

awarded Good Conduct Time. Magistrate Judge Blewitt concluded

that the Bureau of Prisons correctly calculated Chance’s Good

Conduct Time. Chance in his objections basically reiterates the

arguments he made before Magistrate Judge Blewitt. Those

arguments have been rejected by several Courts of Appeals,

including the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. O’Donald v.

Johns, 402 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. March 22, 2005); Perez-Olivo v.

Chavez, 394 F.3d 45 (1st cir. 2005); White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d

997 (7th Cir. 2004); Pacheco-Comacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th

Cir. 2001). 

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the

O’Donald case found that the BOP’s interpretation of § 3624(b)

was reasonable.

Chance’s objections are devoid of merit. We will,

therefore, overrule those objections and adopt Magistrate Judge

Blewitt’s report in toto.

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Chance’s objections are overruled.

Case 4:04-cv-02120-MM Document 14 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 4
4

2. Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s report filed on March 4,

2005, is adopted in toto.

3. Chance’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is

denied.

4. The Clerk of Court shall close this case and send a

copy of this order to Magistrate Judge Blewitt.

5. Any appeal from this order will be deemed

frivolous, without probable cause and not taken in good faith.

 s/Malcolm Muir ______________________________

 MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:gs

Case 4:04-cv-02120-MM Document 14 Filed 04/26/05 Page 4 of 4