Source: http://wv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190923_0000394.NWV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 09:03:46
Document Index: 347339359

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 636', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 2241', '§ 24', '§ 636']

FindACase™ | Lindsey v. Saad
Lindsey v. Saad
GREGORY LINDSEY, Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE [DKT. NO. 32]
THOMAS S. KLEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On February 12, 2018, Gregory Lindsey (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Jennifer Saad (“Respondent”) [Dkt. No. 1]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation Procedure 2, the Court referred the case to the Honorable Michael J. Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge, for an initial review and report and recommendation on the disposition of this matter.
On May 2, 2018, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment [Dkt. No. 11]. After issuance of a Roseboro notice [Dkt. No. 12], the Petitioner filed a response to the motion [Dkt. No. 22]. Respondent filed a reply on June 14, 2018[1] [Dkt. No. 23]. On December 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge Aloi entered a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant Respondent's motion (Dkt. No. 32) and that the § 2241 petition [Dkt. No. 1] be denied and dismissed.
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Aloi also informed the parties of their right to file objections to the recommendation within 14 days of being served with the R&R [Dkt. No. 32 at 14]. Petitioner received the R&R on December 19, 2018 [Dkt. No. 33]. He then moved for an extension of time to file objections to the R&R, and this motion was filed on December 27, 2018 [Dkt. No. 34]. By Order entered January 4, 2019, the Court granted Petitioner a 30-day extension of time by which to file objections to the R&R [Dkt. No. 35]. Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 38] on January 8, 2019. On June 12, 2019, Petitioner filed a document titled “Order to Show Cause - Petitioner is Asking the Courts to Show Cause and Grant the Petitioner Good Time Credits” [Dkt. No. 41] and requested the same relief as in the § 2241 petition. No. other pleadings were filed by the parties.
For the reasons articulated below, this Court finds that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation should be affirmed and adopted in its entirety.
This Court believes that a full recitation of the facts in this case is unnecessary here. Accordingly, this Court relies on the detailed recitation of facts provided in section III of the magistrate judge's R&R [Dkt. No. 22 at 4-6]. An abbreviated review of the relevant facts follows below.
The Petitioner is currently serving a sentence in federal custody[2] for a conviction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (“D.C. Superior Court”), No. 1998-FEL-003373, on charges of First Degree Murder While Armed, in violation of D.C. Code §§ 22-2404, 3202;[3] Possession of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-3202;[4] and Carrying a Pistol Without a License, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-3204(A)[5][Dkt. No. 32 at 5]. On September 10, 1999, Petitioner was sentenced in the D.C. Superior Court to 20 years to life for First Degree Murder While Armed; 5 years to 15 years for Possession of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence; and 20 months to 5 years for Carrying a Pistol Without a License, with some counts concurrent and some consecutive to one another, resulting in a mandatory minimum term of 25 years.[6] Petitioner's conviction was upheld on appeal. See Lindsey v. United States, 911 A.2d 824 (D.C. App. Nov. 30, 2006).
In his § 2241 petition, the Petitioner challenges the Bureau of Prison's (“BOP”) computation of his good time credit (“GTC”) and his parole eligibility date [Dkt. No. 1]. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that the BOP should calculate his GTCs in accordance with the District of Columbia's Good Time Credits Act of 1986 (“D.C. GTCA”), D.C. Code § 24-428 et seq., and apply the GTCs against the mandatory minimum term to which he has been sentenced [Id.].
When reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge's recommendations to which the [parties do] not object.” Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F.Supp.2d 600, 603-04 (N.D. W.Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Petitioner's petition will be liberally construed because he is proceeding pro se. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Petition's objections [Dkt. No. 38] are addressed to Respondent's arguments in support of the motion to dismiss as well as the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Court will only address the objections directed to the R&R.