Bean v. Drew
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Order and Final Report and Recommendation 2 is ADOPTED, and Petitioner Willie James Bean's Petition 1 is DENIED. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 4/28/2014. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
WILLIE JAMES BEAN,
Petitioner,
v.
1:13-cv-2878-WSD
WARDEN D. DREW,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill’s
Order and Final Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [2], on Petitioner Willie
James Bean’s federal habeas corpus petition [1].
I.
BACKGROUND1
Petitioner Willie James Bean (“Petitioner”) is an inmate at the United States
Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia (“USP Atlanta”). On August 28, 2013, Petitioner,
proceeding pro se, submitted his Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to
1
The facts are taken from the R&R and the record. The parties have not objected
to any facts set out in the R&R, and finding no plain error in the Magistrate
Judge’s findings, the Court adopts them. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776,
779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993) (noting that “[b]ecause [Plaintiff-Appellant] did not file
specific objections to factual findings by the magistrate judge, there was no
requirement that the district court de novo review those findings” (emphasis in
original).
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner contends that his advanced age and ill health qualify
him for compassionate release, according to Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) rules.
Petitioner requests that the Court direct USP Atlanta’s warden to release him
immediately.
On September 11, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R,
recommending that the Petition be dismissed, because Petitioner does not allege
that his custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and
because the Court does not have the authority in a habeas proceeding to reduce the
sentence of a compassionate release applicant without a motion from the BOP
director.
On September 25, 2013, Petitioner filed his objections to the R&R.
Petitioner does not object to the facts or conclusions in the R&R. Instead,
Petitioner asks the Court to act on his behalf in securing his compassionate release.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59;
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied,
2
459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This requires that the district
judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been
made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th
Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to those findings and
recommendations to which objections have not been asserted, the Court must
conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Plaintiff did not object
to the findings and recommendations in the R&R, and the Court reviews them for
plain error.2
B.
Analysis
The Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner did not allege that his
confinement was in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. The
2
Liberally construing Petitioner’s pro se objections, the Court finds that Petitioner
did not assert any specific objections to the findings and recommendations in the
R&R. See Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989) (“to challenge the
findings and recommendations of the magistrate [judge], a party must . . . file . . .
written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings a recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for
objection”); see also Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988).
Petitioner does not articulate specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings
and recommendations. He asks the Court to circumvent the established legal
process for obtaining compassionate release.
3
Magistrate Judge further determined that the BOP has not made a motion for
compassionate release on Petitioner’s behalf, and that the Court lacks the authority
to reduce Petitioner’s sentence without such a motion. The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the Petition be denied, and the Court finds no plain error in this
recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Cruz-Pagan v. Warden, FCC
Coleman-Low, 486 F. App’x 77, 79 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that a “§ 2241
petition cannot provide [a petitioner] compassionate release”); id. (holding that a
motion of the Director of the BOP is “a condition precedent to the district court
before it can reduce a term of imprisonment”).
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill’s
Order and Final Report and Recommendation [2] is ADOPTED, and Petitioner
Willie James Bean’s Petition [1] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2014.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?