Hall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 12

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation.. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 12/29/16. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SHAREE HALL,
Petitioner,
v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1346-D

ORDER OF TRANSFER
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which she challenged a
disciplinary hearing that resulted in several penalties being imposed against her.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary Purcell for initial proceedings
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On November 28, 2016, Judge Purcell filed his Report and Recommendation
(R&R) [Doc. No. 10] in which he recommended that Plaintiff’s action be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, her district of confinement. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,
447 (2004) (“[A] § 2241 habeas petitioner ... should name [her] warden as
respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.”); Haugh v. Booker,
210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir. 2000) (“A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks

the execution of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district
where the prisoner is confined.”).
In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Purcell advised Petitioner of her
right to file objections to the same and directed any objections to be filed no later
than December 19, 2016. Judge Purcell further admonished Petitioner that failure
to timely object would constitute a waiver of the right to appellate review of the
factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation. The
deadline for filing objections has expired and to date, Petitioner has neither filed an
objection nor sought an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, the
Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] is ADOPTED as though fully set forth
herein.
IT

IS

THEREFORE

ORDERED

that

Petitioner’s

action

is

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.1 The Court Clerk is hereby directed to transfer this matter forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2016.

1

A related action filed by Plaintiff, Hall v. Warden, et al., No. CIV-16-1336-D,
has also been transferred for the same reasons set forth herein.
2