Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rhodes v. A. Mansukhani

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

March 28, 2017

Antonio Rhodes, Petitioner,
v.
A. Mansukhani, Warden Estill FCI, SC, Respondent.

          OPINION & ORDER

          Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline D. Austin made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.[1] Antonio Rhodes (“Rhodes”) seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Austin recommends granting Respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Rhodes' § 2241 petition.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         Rhodes is currently incarcerated at FCI Estill. On September 5, 1995, Rhodes was arrested by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department in Tampa, Florida for bank robbery. (Am. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 4), ECF No. 17-2.) Rhodes was held in state custody on the bank robbery charge, as well as outstanding charges for grand theft, robbery, battery on a law enforcement officer, and robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery. (Id. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 4), ECF No. 17-2.)

         On October 26, 1995, Rhodes was indicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). (Id. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 5), ECF No. 17-2.) The United States Marshals Service borrowed Rhodes from the State of Florida pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum on November 22, 1995. (Id. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 6 to Decl.), ECF No. 17-2.) On March 28, 1996, Rhodes was sentenced to 130 months' imprisonment by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (“federal sentence”). (Id. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 7 to Decl.), ECF No. 17-2.) The United States Marshals Service returned Rhodes to the custody of the State of Florida on April 1, 1996; placing the federal judgment and commitment as a detainer. (Am. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 6 to Decl.), ECF No. 17-2.)

         On April 12, 1996, Rhodes was sentenced by the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida to 60 months' imprisonment for grand theft; life imprisonment for robbery, which was subsequently reduced to a term of 30 years' imprisonment; 60 months' imprisonment for battery on a law enforcement officer; and 154 months' imprisonment for robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery. (Id. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. 8 to Decl.), ECF No. 17-2.) All terms were ordered to run concurrently with each other and the federal sentence. (Id. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 9), ECF No. 17-2.)

         Rhodes was released from the Florida Department of Corrections into the custody of the United States Marshals Service to begin service of his federal sentence on July 21, 2014. (Id. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 10), ECF No. 17-2.) Rhodes' federal sentence was computed to commence on July 21, 2014, the day he came into federal custody. (Id. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 17 & Ex. 8 to Decl.), ECF No. 17-2.) Rhodes was not awarded prior custody credit for any time prior to July 21, 2014. (Am. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. ¶ 17 & Ex. 8 to Decl.), ECF No. 17-2.) Rhodes' projected release date is December 28, 2023. (Id. Ex. 2 (Erickson Decl. Ex. 8), ECF No. 17-2.)

         On August 1, 2016, [2] Rhodes filed the instant petition pursuant to § 2241, arguing that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”): (1) abused its discretion by refusing his request for a nunc pro tunc designation or retroactive concurrent credit and (2) erred in refusing to give him credit for his federal sentence because he was in federal custody when the state court nolle prossed state charges because the charges had been adopted by federal authorities for federal prosecution. (§ 2241 Pet. 8-9, ECF No. 1.) Respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on October 14, 2016. (Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 16.) On October 17, 2016, Respondent amended its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.[3] (Am. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 17.) On November 16, 2016, Rhodes filed a response in opposition. (Resp. Opp'n Am. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 20.) Magistrate Judge Austin issued a Report and Recommendation on February 24, 2017, recommending granting Respondent's motion and dismissing Rhodes' petition. (R&R, ECF No. 23.) Rhodes filed timely objections on March 7, 2017. (Objs., ECF No. 25.) This matter is now ripe for consideration.

         II. Factual and Procedural History

         A. Summary Judgment Standard

         Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in his favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). However, “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id. at 248.

         A litigant “cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another.” Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir. 1985). “[W]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, disposition by summary judgment is appropriate.” Monahan v. Cty. of Chesterfield, Va., 95 F.3d 1263, 1265 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Ballenger v. N.C. Agric. Extension Serv., 815 F.2d 1001, 1005 (4th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

         B. Objections

         Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party's right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Upon review, the court was able to glean three specific objections. Rhodes objects that the magistrate judge erred by finding that the BOP did not err in: (1) calculating the start date of his federal sentence, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.