Opinion
No. 5:15-HC-2299-D
04-06-2017
CARLOS OFARRIT-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. CHARLES RATLEDGE, Respondent.
ORDER
On June 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 6]. In that M&R, Judge Numbers recommended that the court dismiss Carlos Ofarrit-Figueroa's ("Ofarrit-Figueroa") 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice. On July 11, 2016, Ofarrit-Figueroa filed objections to the M&R [D.E. 7].
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, "a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). Moreover, the court need not conduct a de novo review where a party makes only "general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200-01 (4th Cir. 1997). "Section 636(b)(1) does not countenance a form of generalized objection to cover all issues addressed by the magistrate judge; it contemplates that a party's objection to a magistrate judge's report be specific and particularized, as the statute directs the district court to review only those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007) (emphasis and quotation omitted).
Ofarrit-Figueroa's objections reiterate arguments stated in his petition, and his objections do not meaningfully rebut Judge Numbers's recommendations. Compare Pet. [D.E. 1], with [D.E. 7]. Because Ofarrit-Figueroa's boilerplate objections fail to meaningfully address the M&R, de novo review is not required. See, e.g., Wells, 109 F.3d at 200-01; Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47.
Alternatively, Ofarrit-Figueroa's objections lack merit. Ofarrit-Figueroa, who is committed as a sexually dangerous person pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4248, asserts that, because an immigration detainer has been issued against him, he should be released from his section 4248 commitment "and be deported back to Cuba immediately." Pet. at 8. Judge Numbers recommended dismissing Ofarrit-Figueroa's claim because Ofarrit-Figueroa has not exhausted his administrative remedies. See M&R at 4. Civilly committed detainees, however, must exhaust all available remedies before pursuing relief under section 2241. See Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525, 530-33 (4th Cir. 2010).
Alternatively, section 4248 does not require that the sexually dangerous person be a United States citizen or preclude civil commitment due to the existence of an immigration detainer. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247-48; see also Order, United States v. Ramirez-Alaniz, No. 5:14-HC-2159-BR (E.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 2014) [D.E. 15], aff'd on other grounds, 637 F. App'x 721 (4th Cir. 2016) (unpublished), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2401 (2016). Thus, the claim fails.
In sum, after reviewing the M&R, the record, and Ofarrit-Figueroa's objections, the court agrees with the legal conclusions in the M&R. Accordingly, Ofarrit-Figueroa's objections [D.E. 7] are OVERRULED, and the court adopts the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 6]. Ofarrit-Figueroa's petition is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This 6 day of April 2017.
/s/_________
JAMES C. DEVER III
Chief United States District Judge