Penn v. Warden, FCI

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 12 Report and Recommendations. Petition is Dismissed with Prejudice. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 7/2/18 (Copy mailed to Plaintiff)(MGB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION ALVIN PENN V. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-650-DPJ-FKB WARDEN UNKNOWN BLACKMON DEFENDANT ORDER Petitioner Alvin Penn challenges the computation of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming the Bureau of Prisons has failed to give him credit for time spent in state custody. Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball, in his Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [12], recommending denying relief and dismissing the petition. Specifically, Judge Ball found that Penn had not established that credit was due under 18 U.S.C. § 3585. Penn did not file an Objection, and the time to do so has passed.1 The Court agrees with the conclusion reached by Judge Ball and adopts the R&R [12] in its entirety. The petition is dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 2nd day of July, 2018. s/ Daniel P. Jordan III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The R&R was returned as undeliverable on June 20, 2018. Returned Mail [13]. Penn is under a continuing obligation to keep the Court apprised of his current address, or he is at risk of dismissal without further warning. Order [3] (“[F]ailure to advise this Court of a change of address or failure to timely comply with any Order of this Court will result in this cause being dismissed.”); see Order [5] (same). Accordingly, dismissal is also appropriate for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). 1

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?