From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roberts v. Wilson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Jun 25, 2015
Civil Action No. 3:13CV614 (E.D. Va. Jun. 25, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:13CV614

06-25-2015

EDWARD ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. ERIC D. WILSON, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Edward Roberts, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("§ 2241 Petition," ECF No. 1) challenging the method used by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to award good conduct time credit toward his District of Columbia sentence and arguing that he is entitled to more good conduct credit than the BOP has awarded him. On May 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be granted and the § 2241 Petition be dismissed because Roberts has received all credit he is due. The Court advised Roberts that he could file objections within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Report and Recommendation. Roberts has not responded.

"The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court." Estrada v. Witkowski, 816 F. Supp. 408, 410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties' dispute." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). In the absence of a specific written objection, this Court may adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation without conducting a de novo review. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).

There being no objections, the Report and Recommendation will be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) will be GRANTED. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) will be DENIED AS MOOT. Roberts's claim and the action will be DISMISSED.

An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: 6/25/15
Richmond, Virginia

/s/_________

John A. Gibney, Jr.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Roberts v. Wilson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Jun 25, 2015
Civil Action No. 3:13CV614 (E.D. Va. Jun. 25, 2015)
Case details for

Roberts v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. ERIC D. WILSON, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

Date published: Jun 25, 2015

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:13CV614 (E.D. Va. Jun. 25, 2015)

Citing Cases

Battle v. Ciolli

Because Battle committed his D.C. Code offenses on June 5, 1994, his sentence falls under the District of…