Bunnells v. Warden Edgefield Satellite Prison Camp

Filing 32

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court concurs in the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The within action is dismissed as moot. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/16/2010. (dsto, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) C/A No. 4:09-2083-MBS Petitioner, ) ) v s. ) ) Warden, Edgefield Satellite Prison Camp, ) ORDER ) R esp o n d en t. ) ____________________________________) A t the time of filing, Petitioner Bobby Bunnells, Jr. was an inmate in custody of the Federal B u r e a u of Prisons (BOP). On August 10, 2009, Petitioner Bobby Bunnells, Jr. brought the within p etitio n for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner contends that the BOP fa ile d to determine that he is eligible for confinement in a Community Corrections Center (now k n o w n as a Residential Reentry Center or "RRC"). Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on October 20, 2009. In accordance with R o s e b o ro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4 th Cir. 1975), an order was issued advising Petitioner of the s u m m a ry judgment procedure and the possible consequences of failing to respond adequately. P e titio n e r filed a response in opposition to Respondent's motion on November 2, 2009. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the within action was re fe rre d to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III for pretrial handling. On June 25, 2 0 1 0 , the Magistrate Judge issued an order in which he gave the parties five days to inform the court a s to the status of Petitioner's custody, and if Petitioner had been released to an RRC, their position a s to how it affects the within action, if at all. On July 1, 2010, Respondent filed a response to the M a g i s tr a t e Judge's order in which it asserted that the matter is moot. According to Respondent, P e t i t i o n e r had been placed in an RRC on February 10, 2010. On July 6, 2010, the envelope B o b b y Bunnells, Jr., c o n ta in in g Petitioner's copy of the Magistrate Judge's order of June 25, 2010 was returned to the C le rk of Court marked "RETURN TO SENDER - NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED U N A B LE TO FORWARD." O n July 7, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he re c o m m e n d e d that the petition be dismissed as moot. The envelope containing Petitioner's copy of th e Report and Recommendation was returned to the Clerk's office on August 2, 2010, marked `R E T U R N TO SENDER - UNABLE TO FORWARD." The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e r m i n a t io n of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is m a d e . The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the M a gis tra te Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). The court's review of the record and of the BOP inmate locator indicates that Petitioner c u rre n tly is housed at CCM Raleigh in Butner, North Carolina with a projected release date of A u gu s t 8, 2010. It appears that Petitioner has received the relief sought. The court concurs in the R e p o rt and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The within action is dismissed a s moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. / s / Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina A u gu s t 16, 2010 2 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Petitioner is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 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?