Almond v. Braggs et al
Filing
34
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; adopting 30 Report and Recommendation. The respondents motion for summary judgment 18 is GRANTED and Almonds petition is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/16/2015. (gpre, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Civil Action No.: 8:14-1194-BHH
William J. Almond
Petitioner,
vs.
Opinion and Order
Warden Braggs,
Respondent.
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 13), which recommends that the respondent
Warden Braggs’ (“the respondent”) motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) be
granted, and the § 2241 petition be denied. The Report and Recommendation sets
forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter and the Court
incorporates them without recitation.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner William J. Almond (“the petitioner” or “Almond”), a federal inmate
at FCI-Bennettsville, who is proceeding pro se brought this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the enhancement of his federal sentence under the Armed
Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) and the career offender guidelines. On March 6, 2007,
the petitioner was sentenced to 324 months of incarceration. The petitioner’s sentence
was enhanced under the ACCA and the career offender guidelines as a result of three
prior applicable convictions.
On March 27, 20141, the petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. The petitioner alleges that he no longer qualifies for an enhanced sentence
under the ACCA because his prior conviction in North Carolina for breaking and
entering no longer constitutes a predicate offense under the ACCA in light of the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.
2011). The petitioner also argues he no longer qualifies for a sentence enhancement
under the career offender guidelines because his two prior convictions for assault and
battery in Virginia do not qualify as crimes of violence. He also claims he is actually
innocent.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) DSC,
the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin. On January 16,
2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the respondent’s
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) be granted, and the § 2241 petition be
denied because, inter alia, the petitioner’s challenge to his sentence enhancements
under the ACCA and the career offender guidelines are not appropriate for review
under § 2241, and the petitioner does not satisfy the savings clause of § 2255. The
petitioner filed objections on February 2, 2015 (ECF No. 32).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight.
The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–
71, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
1
Error! Main Document Only.This filing date reflects that the envelope containing the petition was
stamped as having been received on March 27, 2014, by the Federal Correction al Inst. (ECF No.1-1.)
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (holding prisoner's pleading is considered filed when given to
prison authorities for forwarding to the district court).
2
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).
The court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Report
to which specific objections have been filed. Id. However, the court need not conduct
a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do
not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) ( “[D]e novo
review [is] unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendation.”). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence
of a specific objection. Furthermore, in the absence of a timely filed, specific objection,
the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). 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)(1). This Court
may also “receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Id.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court shall dismiss a prisoner’s action if it
determines that the action: “(I) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.”
In reviewing these pleadings, the Court is mindful of
Plaintiff’s pro se status. This Court is charged with liberally construing the pleadings of
3
a pro se litigant. See, e.g., De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003).
The requirement of a liberal construction does not mean, however, that the Court can
ignore a plaintiff’s clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim, or that a
court must assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists.
See United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012).
DISCUSSION
Upon review, the petitioner’s objections provide no basis for this Court to deviate
from the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition.
The petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 must be denied for the reasons set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s concise and thorough report.
With regard to the petitioner’s
challenge to his sentence enhancement, the Magistrate Judge found that Almond’s
petition is, in fact, a successive motion pursuant to § 2255, and that Almond is not
entitled to challenge his federal sentence under § 2241 because he does not satisfy
the savings clause of § 2255. As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals has not extended the savings clause of § 2255 to petitioners
challenging only their sentences, indicating that a petitioner must be challenging the
legality of his conviction, not just his sentence. See United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d
263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). The petitioner’s arguments, while interesting, do not
address the clear Fourth Circuit authority upon which the Magistrate Judge relied, and
his objection is, accordingly, overruled.
The Magistrate Judge also correctly rejected the petitioner’s claim that he is
“actually innocent.”
That the petitioner might not be eligible for the sentence he
received were he sentenced today does not mean that he is “actually innocent” of
4
being a felon in possession of a firearm. As the Magistrate Judge clearly explained the
fact that the petitioner’s prior convictions from Virginia may no longer be classified as
“violent” does not mean that they are no longer felonies.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough, de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, the
Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. The respondent’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED and Almond’s petition is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 16, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina
5
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?