United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
the court for review is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed on May 17, 2019
(ECF No. 10). The court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and incorporates it herein by
reference. The court OVERRULES Plaintiff
Alex White III's Objection (ECF No. 13), and for the
reasons set out in the Report, DISMISSES his
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-2) without
prejudice and without requiring Respondent Bureau of Prisons
to file a return.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
6, 2019, White, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas
Petition”), asserting that “[t]he Federal Bureau
of Prisons [is] hesitating to implement the statutory
congressional mandate of the First Step Act that awards
every inmate 54 days of [g]ood [t]ime [c]redit a
year.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 2.) White argues this
delay violates the rules of statutory construction and due
process of law. (Id. at 6.)
Magistrate Judge entered his Report on May 17, 2019. (ECF No.
10.) The Magistrate Judge determined that White's claim
was without merit because the good time credit provisions of
the First Step Act “will not take effect until July
2019.” (Id. at 4.) As a result, the Magistrate
Judge also found that White's Habeas Petition did not
present a case or controversy under Article III of the United
States Constitution. (Id. at 5.) Finally, the
Magistrate Judge found that “even if the [First Step
Act's good time credit provisions] were effective at this
time, this action is still subject to dismissal because
Petitioner admits that he has not exhausted his available
administrative remedies.” (Id. at 6.)
3, 2019, White filed an Objection to the
Report. (ECF No. 13.) White “objects to the
[M]agistrate [J]udge's assessment that [White] did not
provide any adequate facts to support his argument exhaustion
should be excused in his case.” (Id. at 1.) In
support of his Objection, White cites to United States v.
Walker, No. 3:10-cr-00298-RBB-1 (D. Or. Feb. 7, 2019),
in which a federal district court ordered the Bureau of
Prisons to recalculate a defendant's release date using
the First Step Act's good time credit
provisions. (Id. at 2.) (See also
ECF No. 10 at 5-6 n.5.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District Court of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge only makes a recommendation to this court;
the responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,
270-71 (1976). The court engages in a de novo review of those
portions of the Report to which the parties have made
specific objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court may
accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Also,
the court is required to interpret pro se documents liberally
and will hold those documents to a less stringent standard
than those drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed
pro se is to be liberally construed, ” and
“a pro se complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976))); Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978); Hardin
v. United States, C/A No. 7:12-cv-0118-GRA, 2012 WL
3945314, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2012).
17, 2019, as part of the Report, the Magistrate Judge
notified the parties of their right to file
specific, written objections by May 31, 2019. (ECF
No. 10 at 9.) White's Objection restates` arguments he
advanced in his Habeas Petition and, therefore, “do not
direct the court to a specific error in the
[M]agistrate's proposed findings and
recommendation.” Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47.
(Compare ECF No. 1-2, with ECF No. 13.) At
most, White's Objection disagrees with the Magistrate
Judge's findings. (See ECF No. 13 at 1
(“[P]etitioner respectfully objects to the [M]agistrate
[J]udge's assessment that he did not provide any adequate
facts to support his argument exhaustion should be excused in
his case.”).) “[O]bjections, stating no more than
a general disagreement with the magistrate judge's
findings, do not alert the court to errors and are thus not
accurately labeled as ‘objections.'”
Hendrix v. Colvin, No. 5:12-CV-01353-JMC, 2013 WL
2407126, at *4 (D.S.C. June 3, 2013). In the absence of
specific objections to the Report, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendations without modification. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Absent
specific objections, the court must only ensure that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendations. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note);
Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47 (“Courts have also
held de novo review to be unnecessary in analogous situations
when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do
not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations.”). Additionally, if a party fails to
file specific, written objections to the Report, the party
forfeits the right to appeal the court's decision
concerning the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly,
construing Plaintiff's Objections liberally, the court
finds he failed to advance any specific objections
to the Magistrate Judge's Report, and the court adopts
the Report herein. Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.
thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation provides
an accurate summary of the facts and law in this case.
Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10)
and incorporates it herein by reference. The court
OVERRULES White's Objection (ECF No.
13), and for the reasons set out in the Report,
DISMISSES his Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus (ECF No. 1-2) without prejudice and without requiring
Respondent Bureau of Prisons to file a return.
IS SO ORDERED.