Peterkin v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation 15 and incorporates it herein by reference. The § 2241 petition is transferred to the United States District of California. Signed by Chief Judge Margaret B Seymour on 5/31/2012. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Perry Peterkin, #92172-071,

)
) C/A No. 5:12-1024-MBS
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER
)
Warden, FCC-Victorville,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)
Petitioner Perry Peterkin is an inmate in custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He
currently is housed at FCC-Victorville in Adelanto, California. On April 16, 2012, Petitioner,
proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging
that the Bureau of Prisons has improperly calculated his sentence.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the petition pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, and the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. On May 4, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a
Report and Recommendation in which she determined that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over
Defendant, and that the § 2241 petition should be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This 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)(1).

This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. This court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. In the absence of a timely filed
objection, 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.” Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record.

The court adopts the Report and

Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The § 2241 petition is transferred to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Chief United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
May 31, 2012

2