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.

Hahn v. Mosley

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division

January 23, 2018

Marcus Hahn, Petitioner,
v.
Warden Bonita Mosley, Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield, South Carolina, Respondent.

          ORDER

          Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Marcus Hahn, (“Hahn” or “Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, is an inmate incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Edgefield, South Carolina. Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge.

         The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[1] prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss the Petition in this case without prejudice. (ECF No. 28). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

         The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Report of the Magistrate, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

         Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on November 20, 2017. (ECF No. 28). Petitioner filed his objections to the Report (“Objections”) on January 8, 2018. (ECF No. 34). On January 22, 2018, Respondent filed a Reply to Petitioner's Objections.[2] (ECF No. 35). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Petitioner attempts to make several objections to the Report (ECF No. 34), most of which are repetitions of Petitioner's assertions in his Petition (ECF No. 1). Although vague, some of Petitioner's assertions could be construed as definite enough to constitute an objection. However, each of these objections is without merit.

         A. To Clarify, Respondent Filed a Motion to Dismiss, Not a Motion for Summary Judgment.

         Initially, Petitioner objects to the Report “insofar as the Report states that Respondent has filed a Motion for ‘summary judgment' under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.” (ECF No. 34 p. 3). Petitioner is correct. In fact, Respondent moved to dismiss on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and the test from In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), and it is not a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See (ECF No. 17). However, this technical error does not have a dispositive effect on the case at issue.

         The Magistrate, after stating that Respondent filed a “motion for summary judgment” (ECF No. 28 p. 1), later in the discussion section of the Report states that “this action is subject to dismissal because . . . .” (ECF No. 28 p. 7). Furthermore, the Magistrate recommended that “the Petition in this action be dismissed, without prejudice.” (ECF No. 28 p. 11) (emphasis omitted). Thus, this particular objection warrants no further discussion because the Magistrate analyzed the case as a motion to dismiss and made a mere typographical error in its Report.

         B. Petition Failed to Satisfy the First and Second Prong of the In re Jones Test.

         The Petitioner's objects to the Report's finding that Petitioner failed to satisfy the first and second prongs of the test from In re Jones. This is a substantive issue, and it is thus addressed below.

         As a threshold matter, the Report states that Petition should have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 instead of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 28 p. 7-8). The crux of Hahn's argument, however, is that the decision in United States v. Rentz, 777 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2015) (en banc) renders the “[i]ndictment [as] defective” and, more specifically, “Count IV cannot stand.” See (ECF No. 34 p. 9). “However, § 2241 may be utilized by a federal prisoner to challenge the legality of his or her conviction or sentence if he or she can satisfy the mandates of the ...


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.