Shealey v. Mosely
ORDER RULING ON 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation 11 and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 08/30/2017. (dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Donald S. Shealey, #501347-056,
C/A No. 4:17-1653-JFA
The pro se petitioner, Donald S. Shealey, is a federal prisoner in custody in South
Carolina at FCI Edgefield.
He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging his prior drug conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and stated that the action should be summarily dismissed
because the petitioner is seeking relief from his conviction. Such relief is available, if at
all, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and
standards of law on this matter, and the Court incorporates such without a recitation and
without a hearing.
The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (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,
Recommendation, which was entered on July 20, 2017. That deadline has now expired,
and the petitioner has failed to file objections to the Report. 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).
As the Magistrate Judge notes in her Report, the petitioner is seeking relief from
his conviction and such relief is available, if at all, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To the extent
that petitioner asserts his petition under § 2241 is available to him under the Savings
Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), as interpreted by In re Jones, 266 F.3d 328, 333–34 (4th
Cir. 2000), the Magistrate Judge concludes that § 2241 is unavailable to the petitioner
because he falls short of meeting the Jones criteria. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge
noted that the “Petition fail[ed] to demonstrate that the conduct for which Petitioner was
convicted has been deemed non-criminal by any substantive law change since his
criminal conviction was finalized or since the filing of his § 2255 motion.” (ECF No. 11
This Court agrees and finds that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain
petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
Moreover, the petitioner has not exhausted his
administrative remedies before bringing a claim under this statute.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and
incorporates it herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without
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).
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Because the petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” a certificate of appealability is denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 30, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (West 2017). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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.
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?