United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Howe Hendricks United States District Judge
matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Kexue Huang's
pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. On July 5, 2016, Respondent filed a
motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary
judgment, to which Petitioner responded. In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge for initial review. On August 25,
2016, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, filed a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the
issues and recommending that the Court grant Respondent's
motion for summary judgment. Attached to the Report was a
notice advising the parties of the right to file written
objections to the Report within 14 days of receiving a copy.
On September 9, 2016, Petitioner filed objections, and the
matter is ripe for review.
is currently incarcerated at the Federal Corrections
Institution (“FCI”) in Estill, South Carolina. At
all times relevant to the allegations in his petition,
Petitioner was incarcerated at the McRae Correctional
Facility (“MCF”) in McRae, Georgia.
petition, Petitioner alleges that he was placed in solitary
confinement as a result of a disciplinary action for
possession of a hazardous tool (a cellphone) in violation of
Inmate Disciplinary Code 108 and that he received sanctions
including 30 days of disciplinary segregation as well as the
loss of 41 days of good-conduct time, 60 days of telephone
privileges, and 60 days of commissary privileges. According
to Petitioner, he did not receive his administrative
discipline order within 24 hours of the disciplinary action,
nor did he receive a copy of the Discipline Hearing
Officer's (“DHO”) report within 15 working
days, which Petitioner contends violates Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) regulations. In his request for relief,
I already did my solitary time1 (6 months), and was
transferred to medium security prison. Court can't grant
relief for that. The only thing I am asking is to give my 41
days good time back. Thanks! If an inmate violated any BOP
rule, the inmate will be punished for sure. The BOP staff
didn't follow any rule for my case, can a judge do
something about it?
(ECF No. 1 at 9-10.)
motion for summary judgment, Respondent concedes that the
Court has jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim because
the loss of good-conduct time impacts the duration of
Petitioner's sentence. Respondent also concedes that
Petitioner has exhausted the administrative remedy process.
Nevertheless, Respondent contends that Petitioner has failed
to demonstrate any constitutional violation entitling him to
relief, and in support, Respondent submitted several
exhibits, including the following: a copy of the corrected
incident report; notice of the discipline hearing before the
DHO that was delivered to Petitioner; a copy of the
Inmate's Rights at Discipline Hearing; and a copy of the
DHO decision. In addition, Respondent submitted the
declaration of A. Kirley (“Kirley”), a DHO at MCF
who did not preside over Petitioner's disciplinary
hearing but who is familiar with the disciplinary hearing
process at MCF.
considering Respondent's motion and exhibits, along with
Petitioner's arguments in opposition, the Magistrate
Judge ultimately agreed with Respondent and determined that
the record contained no evidence of a due process violation.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment.
objections, Petitioner argues, without pointing to any
evidence, that he has shown the existence of a genuine
dispute of material fact as to a due process violation, and
he complains about Respondent's reliance on Kirley's
affidavit because Kirley did not conduct Petitioner's
actual disciplinary hearing.
The Magistrate Judge's Report
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).