United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Richard J. Bobka, Petitioner,
Warden Joyner, Respondent.
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
J. Bobka, (“Bobka” or “Petitioner”),
proceeding pro se, is an inmate incarcerated at a
Federal Correctional Institution in 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.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that this Court should dismiss the Petition in this
matter without prejudice. (ECF No. 7). 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.Va. 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 April 27, 2018. (ECF No. 7).
Petitioner filed his Objection to the Report on May 11, 2018.
(ECF No. 10). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
makes several allegations in his § 2241 petition wherein
he essentially challenges the length of his sentence.
See (ECF No. 1). As the Magistrate noted, the
Petitioner's only potential remedy would be to file a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See (ECF No. 7
p. 4). Since Petitioner chose to bring his action under
§ 2241 instead of § 2255, he must meet the
requirements of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) savings clause
for this Court to have jurisdiction over his claim, which he
has not done. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Rice
v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010). Thus,
Petitioner is foreclosed from bringing an action under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. See id.
Objection, the Petitioner vaguely objects to the
Magistrate's Report, making conclusory allegations that
his rights were violated and that the Magistrate's
recommendations to this Court are flawed. See (ECF
No. 10). Moreover, Petitioner attached an affidavit to his
Objection wherein he claims that he failed to file a §
2255 because of alleged “material
misrepresentations” and “deception” on the
part of the sentencing judge and his attorney. See
(ECF No. 10-1 p. 2). Petitioner's vague objection is
Magistrate noted, the threshold issue is that Petitioner has
not met the requirements of the § 2255(e) savings
clause. The savings clause provides the following:
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.”
Rivera, 617 F.3d at 807. “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