Quinones-Correa v. Wells
Filing
11
ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendations. Therefore, the petition under 2241 is Denied, this civil action shall be Closed and final judgment shall be Entered in favor of the Respondent. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 7/12/12. (cmr)
ORIGINAL
U.S. DSIR
C[ui
A UGUSTA £V.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2JUL 12 PM
2:27
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CLERK
SO. D1ST OF GA.
DUBLIN DIVISION
RODOLFO QUINONES-CORREA,
Petitioner,
V.
)
)
)
CV 311-050
)
WALT WELLS, Warden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
ORDER
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed (doe. no.
10). Petitioner commenced this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
2241, asserting that his due
process rights were violated during the course of disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the
loss of 27 days of good conduct time ("GCT").
(5,ee doc.
no. 1.) Respondent filed aresponse
to the § 2241 petition, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition be denied,
finding that the disciplinary proceedings did not violate Petitioner's procedural due process
rights and that the record disclosed adequate evidentiary support for the decision to sanction
Petitioner with the loss of 27 days of GCT. (Doc. no. 8,)
In his objections, Petitioner sets forth a number of legal arguments and factual
allegations not included in his original petition, such as various details pertaining to his
purportedly inadequate disciplinary proceedings.'
(5ee
doe. no. 10, pp. 3-6.) Petitioner
'Petitioner provides no reason for failing to assert these allegations previously. (See
doc. no. 10.)
implores the Court to reject the Magistrate Judge's R&R based on these new allegations.
(Seed.)
While Petitioner would like to use his objections to inject new contentions and
allegations upon receiving an unfavorable analysis from the Magistrate Judge, to allow him
to do so would frustrate systematic efficiencies and reduce the role of the Magistrate Judge
to 'that of a mere dress rehearser." Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir.
2009) (quoting United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000)). Therefore, the
Court will not consider the new material set forth in Petitioner's objections to the R&R. See
at 1291-92 (approving district court's refusal to consider new argument set forth by pro
se litigant in objections where the party had the opportunity to present the argument to the
magistrate judge and failed to do so); Howell, 231 F.3d at 621 (holding that district courts
are not required to consider supplemental factual allegations presented for the first time in
objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation).
Turning to the remaining portion of the objections, Petitioner plainly fails to provide
any reason to depart from the conclusions in the R&R. Thus, Petitioner's objections are
OVERRULED. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, the petition brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, this civil action shall be CLOSED, and a final judgment shall
be ENTERED in favor of Re k
dyent.
SO ORDERED this /
of July, 2012, at Augusta, Georgia.
UNTT4TScT&
2
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?