1

The undersigned makes no finding or recommendation as to whether the designated

Respondent is the correct respondent in this case.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SIDNEY JAMES BRASS, §

PETITIONER, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:05-CV-660-Y

§

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, §

RESPONDENT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AND NOTICE AND ORDER

This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Texas. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. NATURE OF THE CASE

This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a federal prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241. 

B. PARTIES

Petitioner Sidney James Brass, Reg. # 30556-177, is in custody of the Federal Bureau of

Prisons and is currently incarcerated at Federal Detention Center in Mansfield, Texas.

Respondent is the United States Bureau of Prisons.1

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00660-Y Document 5 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 13
2

C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 28, 2003, Brass was sentenced by the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, to a term of forty-six months’ imprisonment and five

years supervised release. (Petition at 1.) With good time, Brass was to begin his term of supervised

release on October 4, 2005. (Id.) Due to alleged violations of his pre-parole release program,

however, Brass was sanctioned and his good time was forfeited. (Id. at 1-5.) On October 20, 2005,

Brass filed this petition, in which he admits that he has not exhausted his prison administrative

remedies regarding his time-credit dispute and argues that any attempt to do so would be futile and

inadequate. (Id. at 5.) 

On November 22, 2005, Brass filed with this court a pleading entitled, “Agreed Motion to

Withdraw Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice,” stating that his counsel and the attorneys for

the Bureau have communicated and that it now appears appropriate for him to exhaust his

administrative remedies. In order to allow him to exhaust his administrative remedies, the parties

agree to withdraw the petition.

II. RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore recommended that Brass’s “Agreed Motion to Withdraw Writ of Habeas

Corpus Without Prejudice” should be GRANTED and this case be dismissed without prejudice,

except as to any application of the federal statute of limitations or other federal procedural bar which

may apply.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00660-Y Document 5 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 14
3

III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

 AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific

written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten (10) days after the party has been

served with a copy of this document. The court is extending the deadline within which to file

specific written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions,

and recommendation until December 20, 2005. The United States District Judge need only make

a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,

conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(B)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual

finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice,

from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual finding or legal conclusion accepted by the

United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th

Cir. 1996) (en banc op. on reh’g); Carter v. Collins, 918 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1990).

IV. ORDER

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that each party is granted until December 20, 2005,

to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,

conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the

opposing party chooses to file a response, a response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing

date of the objections. 

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00660-Y Document 5 Filed 11/29/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 15
4

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to

the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and hereby

is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge. 

SIGNED November 29, 2005.

 /s/ Charles Bleil 

CHARLES BLEIL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00660-Y Document 5 Filed 11/29/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 16