Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150522_0001362.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-04-22 02:58:58
Document Index: 676247500

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 636', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241']

Petitioner William Benjamin Brown, ("Petitioner"), a federal prisoner at FCI-Estill, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for all pre-trial proceedings. On May 8, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, ("the Report") (ECF No. 19), recommending that Respondent's motion to deny Petitioner's habeas petition, (ECF No. 13), be granted and that the petition be dismissed. On May 21, 2015, Petitioner filed an Objection to the Report. (ECF No. 21). The matter is now ripe for review by this Court.
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the Petitioner's Objection. The Court has undertaken this de novo review, even though Petitioner's Objection fails to advance specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report but instead merely restates arguments already advanced in earlier filings. (ECF No. 21). Petitioner fails entirely to address the core of the Magistrate Judge's analysis, specifically, the Magistrate Judge's determination that Petitioner has failed to satisfy the three-part test outlined in In Re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), that must be established in order for a § 2241 petitioner to obtain relief on claims normally brought pursuant to § 2255. See ECF No. 19 at p. 7. As the Report sets out, Petitioner has not shown a change in the substantive law occurring subsequent to his direct appeal and prior § 2255 petition that has rendered the conduct for which he was convicted no longer criminal and that would permit him to seek relief pursuant to § 2241. Id . Nor has Petitioner advanced a facially viable claim of "actual innocence" by presenting new, reliable evidence not presented in a prior proceeding. See id. at p. 8.
For the forgoing reasons, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 19). Respondent's motion to deny Petitioner's habeas petition, (ECF No. 13), is GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED.