Jones v. Phelps

Filing 24

ORDER adopting the 20 Report and Recommendation, granting Respondent's 12 Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the Petitioner's 1 petition without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 8/17/2021. (lbak)

1:21-cv-00418-JFA

Date Filed 08/17/21

Entry Number 24

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tyree Craig Jones, #26123-058,

C/A No. 1:21-cv-00418-JFA

Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
Warden Phelps,

Respondents.
Tyree Craig Jones (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, is an inmate incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Edgefield, South Carolina. (ECF No. 1). He filed this
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the
Magistrate Judge for review.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 20) and opines that this Court should grant
Respondent’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF No.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is
charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
1

1:21-cv-00418-JFA

Date Filed 08/17/21

Entry Number 24

Page 2 of 3

12). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
In the Roseboro order issued on April 19, 2021, the petitioner was placed on notice
that if the Court considers materials outside of the pleadings, a motion to dismiss is
converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. (ECF No. 13). As matters
outside the pleadings have been presented to and not excluded by the Court (see ECF No.
12-1), and the Magistrate Judge’s Report construed the motion as a motion for summary
judgment, the motion to dismiss will be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule
56. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside
the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the [C]ourt, the motion must be treated
as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.”). Petitioner was advised of his right to object
to the Report, which was entered on the docket on June 16, 2021. (ECF No. 20). The
Magistrate Judge required the parties to file objections by June 30, 2021. Id. Petitioner
failed to file any objections and the time for doing so has expired. Thus, this matter is ripe
for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th
Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this
Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

2

1:21-cv-00418-JFA

Date Filed 08/17/21

Entry Number 24

Page 3 of 3

Here, Petitioner has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not
required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. The key issue before the
Court is whether the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has an obligation, under the terms
of the First Step Act, to apply earned time credits prior to January 15, 2022, where the
record indicates Petitioner may have earned sufficient credits to have already been
transferred to pre-release custody. (ECF No. 20). A review of the Report indicates that the
Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner’s underlying claim seeking
application of earned time credits under the First Step Act is without merit, as the plain
language of the relevant statutes as well as the weight of authority do not show that the
BOP is obligated to apply Petitioner’s earned time credits prior to January 15, 2022.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately
summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court
adopts the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 20). Thus, Respondent’s motion (ECF
No. 12) is granted and the Petitioner’s petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 17, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3