Gadsen v. Owen

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge bruce howe Hendricks, granting 13 Motion to Dismiss; granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/26/12.(hhil, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert James Gadsen,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
)
John R. Owen,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 2:11-3190-JFA-BHH

ORDER

The pro se petitioner, Robert James Gadsen, is a federal inmate housed at the Federal
Correctional Institution (FCI) in Salters, South Carolina. He brings this action under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prison’s calculation of his jail credits for time spent
in state custody.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that respondent’s motion for summary judgment2 should be
granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02. 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).
2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying petitioner
of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the
motion for summary judgment. Petitioner responded to the motion.

1

In this action, petitioner appears to argue that because was placed in “closed custody
confinement” for his 10-year state sentence (which was ultimately overturned), he was not
able to work and earn good time credit towards his federal sentence. The respondent
contends that it has properly awarded petitioner credit for his prior custody. This court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s opinion that petitioner’s inability to earn credits does not
implicate a liberty interest that arises directly under the Constitution.
The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on July 2, 2012. However, the petitioner
failed to file objections and the time within which to do so has expired. In the absence of
specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report
and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, the respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is granted
and this action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 26, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2