United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge
Manuel Skinner, (Petitioner), proceeding pro se,
brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Petitioner is a federal prisoner presently in custody
at Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution. 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 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 and without requiring Respondent to
file an answer or return. (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 August 14, 2018. (ECF No. 12).
Petitioner filed timely objections on August 27, 2018. (ECF
No. 16). On October 19, 2018, Petitioner filed a
“Notice of Order.” (ECF No. 19). On December 17,
2018, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Emergency Writ of
Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum” moving this Court to
conduct a hearing. (ECF No. 22). Thereafter, on January 11,
2019, Petitioner moved to amend his objections, (ECF No. 24),
and attached amended objections to his motion, which this
Court granted on January 16, 2019. (ECF No. 25). On January
28, 2019, Petitioner again filed amended objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 28). This Court will Consider all of
Petitioner's objections, (ECF Nos. 16, 24, & 28),
Petitioner's “Notice of Order, ” (ECF No.
19), and Petitioner's “Motion for Emergency Writ of
Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, ” (ECF No. 22). Thus,
this matter is ripe for review.
Report recites the factual and procedural background giving
rise to this action. Briefly, Petitioner was charged in a
twelve-count indictment related to the distribution of
controlled substances, resisting arrest, and firearms
violations. United States v. Skinner, No.
1:02-CR-93- DCB-JMR, 2015 WL 461663, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 4,
2015). After a jury trial, on June 9, 2003, Petitioner was
convicted of nine of the twelve counts. Id.
Petitioner was sentenced on January 14, 2004, by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi for a total term of imprisonment of forty-five
years in the custody of the BOP. United States v.
Skinner, 1:02-cv-93-DCB (S.D.Miss. Feb. 17, 2004)
(Judgment) (ECF No. 136).
filed a direct appeal in the United States Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed his sentence
and conviction on June 1, 2005. United States v.
Skinner, 132 Fed.Appx. 554, 555 (5th Cir. 2005).
Thereafter, Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion in the
sentencing court, which was denied on the merits on July 14,
2009. United States v. Skinner, No. CIV A
1:06CV1091-DCB, 2009 WL 2030427 (S.D.Miss. July 14, 2009).
Petitioner then appealed the denial of his § 2255
motion, which the Fifth Circuit denied. Petitioner filed two
subsequent § 2255 motions, which were both denied. Both
§ 2255 motions were denied as successive petitions
without authorization; however, both § 2255 motions were
also considered on the merits and the court found that
Petitioner's arguments still failed. See United
States v. Skinner, No. 1:14-cv-238-DCB, 2015 WL 461663,
at *1 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 4, 2015) (“But even if Skinner
had successfully certified his second motion, his argument
would still fail.”); Skinner v. United States,
No. 1:17-cv-151-DCB, 2018 WL 522780, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Jan.
23, 2018) (“This successive motion has not
been certified by the Fifth Circuit as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(h). Nor would it be, as it brings forth no new
evidence nor is it based on a new rule of constitutional law.
For that reason alone, it must be dismissed. Nevertheless,
the Court will address the merits of the petition.”).
§ 2241 Petition, it appears that Petitioner attacks his
criminal conviction and sentence and seeks immediate release
from BOP custody. The crux of Petitioner's argument is
essentially that he is “being held illegally because
the United States lacked [federal] territorial and
criminal [jurisdiction] . . . .” (ECF No. 1 p. 37).
Petitioner also argues he is “actually innocent of
these nonexistent federal offenses . . . .” (ECF No. 1
Magistrate Judge suggests that the instant petition be
dismissed without prejudice because: “The Petition is
devoid of allegations suggesting that § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective such that the savings clause would
apply to permit Petitioner to raise his claims under a §
2241 petition.” (ECF No. 12 p. 6).
Petitioner's “objections” are not specific
because they are either a rehash of his initial Petition or
do not direct the Court to a specific error in the Magistrate
Judge's proposed findings and recommendations. First,
Petitioner attempts to object to the Magistrate Judge's
As grounds for submitting the present habeas action,
Petitioner appears to claim that the Federal Government lacks
constitutional authority to enact criminal statutes related
to drug crimes and therefore lacked jurisdiction to
prosecute, convict, and sentence Petitioner. [Doc. 1 at
14-16.] While the allegations and arguments set forth in the
Petition are difficult to understand, it appears that