United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Bryan Harwell United States District Judge
Ronald Ray Jordan, proceeding pro se filed the
instant petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Petitioner seeks a "quantum change" in his
custody level within the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")
arguing that his Florida conviction for "attempted
arson" is not a crime of violence as determined by the
BOP. On June 26, 2017, Respondent Warden Mansukhani filed a
motion to dismiss [ECF No. 9] arguing Petitioner's claim
is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and this court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation
[ECF No. 15] of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker filed on
November 16, 2017. The Magistrate Judge recommended that
Respondent's motion to dismiss be granted.
filed Objections [ECF No. 18] to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation on December 3, 2017.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which
specific objection is 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
right to de novo review may be waived by the failure
to file timely objections. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687
F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). 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's
proposed findings and recommendations.” Id.
Moreover, in the absence of objections to the R & R, the
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting
the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). However, in the absence of objections,
the Court must “‘satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's
Magistrate Judge recommended the Court grant Respondent's
motion to dismiss because Petitioner's claim is not
cognizable under § 2241. Petitioner seeks to lower his
custody level/security classification and claims his custody
level/security classification negatively affects various
conditions of his confinement including his institutional
placement and rehabilitative opportunities. Because
conditions of confinement claims are not cognizable under
§ 2241, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing
Magistrate Judge also found that Petitioner's claim
failed on the merits because a prisoner has no constitutional
right to a particular security classification or to be housed
in a particular institution. See Meachum v. Fano,
427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976); Montanye v. Haynes, 427
U.S. 236, 242 (1974); Olin v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S.
238, 245-248 (1983) (finding no constitutional right to be
housed in a particular institution, at a particular custody
level, or in a particular portion or unit of a correctional
filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation arguing this Court has jurisdiction to decide
whether his prior conviction for attempted arson was violent
under the definition used by the BOP in its policy statement
claim, however, is not cognizable under § 2241 and fails
on the merits. Petitioner challenges his custody level, not
the execution of his sentence. Consequently, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Brown v. LaManna, No. 3:08- 1918-HMH-JRM, 2008 WL
5062180, at *3 (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 2008). The change in
classification Petitioner seeks is not a “quantum
change” in his level of custody and is not available
relief under § 2241. Robinson v. LaManna, No.
3:08-cv-277-SB-JRM, 2008 WL 4960236, at *2 (D.S.C. Nov. 19,
2008). Furthermore, there is no constitutional right to a
particular custody level. Olin, 461 U.S. at 245-248.
Petitioner, therefore, cannot establish that "[h]e is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
those reasons, Respondent's motion to dismiss is ...