Spencer v. Oddo

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 9 Report and Recommendations (1)The petitioners objections to the report of Judge Schwab, (Doc. 10), are OVERRULED.(2)The report and recommendation of Judge Schwab, (Doc. 9), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.(3)The petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED.(4)The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 5/11/18. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES SPENCER a/k/a
TROY BUXTON,

:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-185

:

(JUDGE MANNION)

Petitioner
v.
:
L.J. ODDO, WARDEN,
:
Respondent
:
ORDER
Pending before the court is the report of Magistrate Judge Susan E.
Schwab which recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in
this action, (Doc. 1), be dismissed. (Doc. 9). The petitioner filed objections to
the report, (Doc. 10), to which the respondent filed an opposing brief, (Doc.
11). In turn, the petitioner filed a reply brief. (Doc. 12).
When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of
the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard is de novo,
the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge,
and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the
extent it deems proper. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa.
2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no

objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also
Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.
2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)
(explaining judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not,
the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
The petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 in which he his challenging his life sentence
under the “three strikes law,” specifically, 18 U.S.C. §3559(c), on the basis
that his prior felony convictions occurred before the effective date of the
statute. Upon review, Judge Schwab concluded that the petitioner’s claim
does not fall within the narrow exception authorized by the saving clause of
28 U.S.C. §2255. Moreover, Judge Schwab found that the petitioner cannot
challenge his sentence by way of §2241 noting that the Third Circuit has
consistently “held that challenges of federal inmates attacking sentence
enhancements cannot be raised by means of a Section 2241 petition and a
district court has no Section 2241 jurisdiction to reexamine or second guess

2

the decision of the federal court.” (Doc. 9) (quoting Gauthier v. Ebbert, 2016
WL 3197709, at *2 (M.D.Pa. June 9, 2016). Judge Schwab therefore
recommends that the instant petition be dismissed.
The petitioner has filed objections to Judge Schwab’s report. However,
those objections do nothing more than repeat the same claims raised in his
petition. The court finds the report of Judge Schwab to be well-reasoned and
well-supported. As such, the court will adopt the report in its entirety as the
decision of the court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The petitioner’s objections to the report of Judge Schwab,
(Doc. 10), are OVERRULED.

(2)

The report and recommendation of Judge Schwab, (Doc.
9), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

(3)

The petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is
DISMISSED.

(4)

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

S/Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Date: May 11, 2018
O:\Mannion\shared\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2016 ORDERS\16-185-01.wpd

3