United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
BRYAN HARWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ubaldo Diaz, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. See Petition [ECF No. 1]. The matter is
before the Court for consideration of Petitioner's
objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R &
R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers,
See R & R [ECF No. 11]; Pet.'s Objs. [ECF
No. 19]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
summarily dismiss Petitioner's § 2241 petition
without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a
return. R & R at 5.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
§ 2241 petition,  Petitioner challenges a prison
disciplinary proceeding that occurred before a disciplinary
hearing officer (“DHO”) at FCI-Edgefield and
resulted in the loss of forty-one days of good conduct
time. Pet. at 2-8. The Magistrate Judge
recommends summarily dismissing Petitioner's § 2241
petition because he has failed to fully exhaust the
administrative remedies available through the Federal Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”). R & R at 5. Petitioner
objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, arguing
“he has exhausted all administrative remedies ‘as
best as possible' and he was deprived of his right to
appeal DHO Report and Findings.” Pet.'s Objs. at 5.
2241 is the proper means for a federal prisoner to challenge
the BOP's sentencing calculations, including good conduct
time credits. See Yi v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 412
F.3d 526 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Little,
392 F.3d 671, 679 (4th Cir. 2004). Section 2241 petitions are
subject to judicial screening, and a district court must
summarily dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court.” Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in
the United States District Courts. “If the petition is
not dismissed, the judge must order the respondent to file an
answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to
take other action the judge may order.” Id.
Although § 2241 does not contain a statutory exhaustion
requirement, courts consistently require prisoners to exhaust
their administrative remedies before seeking habeas review
under § 2241. See, e.g., Braden v. 30th
Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 490-91
(1973) (requiring exhaustion in a § 2241 matter);
Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525, 530-33 (4th Cir. 2010)
administers an inmate discipline program. See 28
C.F.R. §§ 541.1-541.8. “The discipline
process starts when staff witness or reasonably believe that
[an inmate has] committed a prohibited act. A staff member
will issue [the inmate] an incident report describing the
incident and the prohibited act(s) [the inmate is] charged
with committing.” Id. § 541.5(a). If
(after investigation) the incident report is referred to a
DHO for further review, the DHO will conduct a hearing and
issue a written report. Id. §§
inmate may appeal the DHO's decision through the
BOP's Administrative Remedy Program. Id. §
541.8(I); see generally 28 C.F.R. §§
542.10-542.19. The DHO appeal process consists of two steps.
First, the inmate must submit a DHO appeal within twenty
calendar days “to the Regional Director for the region
where the inmate is currently located.” 28 C.F.R.
§ 542.14(d)(2). Second, if the inmate “is not
satisfied with the Regional Director's response, ”
he may submit an appeal to the General Counsel (located at
the Central Office) “within 30 calendar days of the
date the Regional Director signed the response.”
Id. § 542.15(a). “Appeal to the General
Counsel is the final administrative appeal.”
may extend the time limits for an appeal (to either the
Regional Director or General Counsel) “[w]hen the
inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay.”
Id. “In general, valid reason for delay means
a situation which prevented the inmate from submitting the
request within the established time frame.”
Id. § 542.14(b).
may reject an inmate's appeal at any level for failure to
comply with the administrative remedy requirements.
Id. § 542.17(a). When an appeal is rejected,
the Administrative Remedy Coordinator will provide the inmate
a written notice explaining the reason for rejection.
Id. § 542.17(b). “If the defect on which
the rejection is based is correctable, the notice shall
inform the inmate of a reasonable time extension within which
to correct the defect and resubmit the . . . Appeal.”
Id. If the inmate is not given an opportunity to
correct the defect and resubmit the appeal, the inmate may
appeal the rejection to the next appeal level, and
“[t]he Coordinator at that level may affirm the
rejection, may direct ...