Reid v. Antonelli

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 . It is the judgment of this Court Petitioners petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without requiring Respondent to file a response. To the extent Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability from this Court, that certificate is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 6/7/2018. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
ANTHONY REID,
Petitioner,
vs.
B. M. ANTONELLI,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-00990-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE A
RESPONSE

This case was filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus (petition) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(section 2241).

Petitioner is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the

Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the
petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a response. The
Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District
of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Courts are not, however, required
to “conjure up questions never squarely presented to them” or seek out arguments for a party.
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on May 22, 2018, ECF No. 9, and the Clerk of Court
entered Petitioner’s objections to the Report on May 31, 2018, ECF No. 12. The Court has
reviewed the objections, but holds them to be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment
accordingly.
As a preliminary matter, the Magistrate Judge recommended the petition be dismissed
because Petitioner failed to allege he lost any good time credit, and thus neglected to “raise an
issue that affects the duration of the petitioner’s confinement . . . .” ECF No. 9 at 3. In his
objections, Petitioner admits he has not lost any good time credit (GTC). ECF No. 12 at 1. As a
result, there has been no time added to Petitioner’s incarceration, and a habeas corpus action will
not lie. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) (noting a habeas corpus action is proper
where “success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its
duration.”).
Petitioner objects the Magistrate Judge erred in not finding the prison “at fault for failing
to apprise” Petitioner of 28 CFR § 543.11(i). ECF 12 at 1. 28 CFR § 543.11(i) requires the
Warden of a federal prison to give an inmate who needs to meet an imminent court deadline a

2

“special time allowance for research and preparation of documents . . . . Otherwise, each inmate
shall continue his regular institutional activities without undue disruption by legal activities.”
Petitioner advances if the infraction he incurred as a result of allegedly missing his GED class
were removed from his record, he would be eligible sooner for a lower security placement. Habeas
corpus is the appropriate remedy, however, when a prisoner “is challenging the very fact or
duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled
to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment.” See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 499 (1973). Petitioner here does not seek immediate or speedier release from custody,
but reclassification and quicker transfer to a lower security institution. This is not the type of claim
habeas corpus seeks to remedy. For the above reasons, the Court will overrule Petitioner’s
objections.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standards
set forth above, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it
herein.

Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court Petitioner’s petition is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without requiring Respondent to file a response.
To the extent Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability from this Court, that
certificate is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 7th day of June, 2018, in Columbia, South Carolina.

s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within sixty days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4