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.

Bobka v. Joyner

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

May 31, 2018

Richard J. Bobka, Petitioner,
v.
Warden Joyner, Respondent.

          ORDER

          Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Richard 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.

         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 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.

         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.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).

         Petitioner 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.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Petitioner 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.

         In his 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 addressed below.

         As the 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).

         “[I]t 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 individual ...


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.