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, )

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-