United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
David A. Hagen, Petitioner,
Warden FCI Williamsburg, Respondent.
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
A. Hagen, (“Hagen” or “Petitioner”),
proceeding pro se, is an inmate incarcerated at a
Federal Correctional Institution. Hagen 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.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action  prepared a thorough
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opines
that this Court should dismiss the Petition in this case
without prejudice. (ECF No. 12). 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.
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).
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on October 12, 2017. (ECF No. 12).
Petitioner filed his objections to the Report
(“Objections”) on October 25, 2017. (ECF No. 17).
Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
attempts to make several objections to the Report, most of
which are repetitions of Hagen's assertions in his
original Petition. Although vague, two of Petitioner's
assertions could be construed as definite enough to
constitute an objection. However, each of these objections is
Hagen's 2241 Petition Does Not Satisfy the Requirements
crux of Hagen's argument is that, in light of the Supreme
Court's decision in United States v. Santos, 553
U.S. 507 (2008), his conviction for money laundering
“cannot stand and is illegal, nunc pro tunc.”
(ECF No. 1 p. 10). 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. 12 p.
2). 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
so-called § 2255 ‘savings clause.'”
Reyes-Requena, v. U.S., 243 F.3d 893, 901
(5th Cir. 2001). The “savings clause” provides
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion
pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it
appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by
motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such
court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that
the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (emphasis added).
is well established that defendants convicted in federal
court are obliged to seek habeas relief from their
convictions and sentences through § 2255.”
Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010).
“It is only when ‘§2255 proves inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of detention, ' that a
federal prisoner may pursue habeas relief under §
2241.” Id. (quoting In re Vial, 115
F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997). “[T]he remedy afforded
by § 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective
merely because . . .an individual is procedurally barred from
filing a § 2255 motion.” Id. (quoting
Vial, 115 F.3d at 1194 n.5) (internal quotations
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals provides the circumstances in
which a § 2241 petition may be used to pursue habeas
relief. See In re Jones, 226 F.3d at 328 (4th Cir.
2000). In Jones, the court held that “§
2255 may be inadequate or ineffective in certain
circumstances, ” and that, “under these limited
circumstances, § 2255 is inadequate to test the legality
of the prisoner's detention, and accordingly, ” in