Jaume-Suarez v. Warden FCI Edgefield

Filing 23

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 19 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 11 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 8/8/2017.(ssam, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Jason Jaume-Suarez, Petitioner, v. Warden FCI Edgefiled, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:16-cv-3770-RMG ORDER AND OPINION Petitioner, a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. No . 1.) This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R . & R. " ) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 19) recommending that the Court grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11) because the habeas petition is moot. For the reasons set forth below, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11) is granted. I. Legal Standards a. Pro Se Pleadings This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep 't ofSocial Services, 901F.2d387 (4th Cir. 1990). -1- b. Magistrate's Report and Recommendation The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270- 71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, "a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). II. Discussion Pe ti ti oner was released from federal custody on January 19, 201 7, and he has not responded to Respondent' s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons outlined in the Magistrate's R. & R. , Petitioner's habeas petition is moot because Petitioner was seeking an earlier release date and has now been released. Petitioner has not filed any objections to the R. & R. , and this Court finds that the Magistrate correctly applied the controlling law to the facts of this case. III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court. Respondent' s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11) is granted. -2- IV. Certificate of Appealability The governing law provides that: (c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (c)(3) The certificate of appeal ability . . . shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies the standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this court' s assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance ofa certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. vc;Mar~I . AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Richard United States District Court Judge August ~ , 2017 Charleston, South Carolina -3-

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?