Opinion
No. 3:17-cv-01070-TC
03-25-2018
BRYAN A. HAMPTON, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD IVES, WARDEN, Defendant.
ORDER :
Magistrate Judge Coffin issued a Findings and Recommendation [9] on January 16, 2018, in which he recommends that the Court deny Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. The mater is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). As stated in the F&R, to the extent that Petitioner requests relief from the Bureau of Prison's individualized determination that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his claim. Further, to the extent that Petitioner alleges that the Bureau of Prison's regulation 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b)(5)(iii) is unconstitutional under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), this argument fails. As "the BOP's internal regulation is neither a criminal statute nor a civil penalty statute, . . . [it] does not proscribe or limit a citizen's conduct at all" and "cannot be unconstitutionally vague." Kuban v. Snyder-Norris, Civil No. 16-52-HRW, 2017 WL 2609037, at *3 (E.D. Ky. June 15, 2017) (citing Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 148-49 (2007) ("As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.")). Accordingly, having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation [9]. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [1] is DENIED and this case is dismissed. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 25 day of March, 2018
/s/_________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge