Belt v. Drew

Filing 29

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant and granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/21/2011.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Issac R. Belt,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Darlene Drew, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
________________________________ )

C/A No. 9:11-1054-TMC

OPINION & ORDER

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 4, 2011. (Dkt. # 1). Petitioner,
an inmate with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), contests his conviction on a
disciplinary charge. On July 7, 2011, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss and a
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 14). Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se,
the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.
1975), on July 8, 2011, advising Petitioner of the motion for summary judgment
procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond. (Dkt. #
15). An Order was filed on August 12, 2011 providing the Petitioner with an additional
ten days to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 17).
Petitioner thereafter timely filed his Response in Opposition to the Summary Judgment
Motion. (Dkt. # 19).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., all
pre-trial proceedings were referred to a Magistrate Judge. On September 20, 2011,
Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report")
recommending that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 14) be granted

and the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. # 21).

The Magistrate Judge

provided Petitioner a notice advising him of his right to file objections to the Report.
(Dkt. # 21 at 9). Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report on October
11, 2011. (Dkt. # 23). The objections are essentially recitations of the allegations set
forth in the Petition filed on May 4, 2011.
Standard of Review
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270-71 (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).
The 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. 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). 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).

2

Discussion
The Magistrate Judge recommended Respondent’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted. The Magistrate Judge determined that the Petitioner’s Uniform
Disciplinary Hearing was conducted in a manner which satisfied the requirements set
forth in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) such that the Petitioner’s claim of a
violation of due process was without merit. The Magistrate Judge further concluded
that the Petitioner’s claim of actual innocence was without merit when viewed in light of
Superintendent, Massachusetts Correction Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), and
that the Petitioner’s claim of excessive discipline at the highest level based on an
alleged vague regulation was without foundation. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such
without a recitation.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the
standard set forth above, the Court finds Petitioner’s objections are without merit.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein.

It is therefore

ORDERED that Respondent’s Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. # 14) is GRANTED and
the Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties are referred to the Notice of Right to Appeal on the following page.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
December 21, 2011
Greenville, South Carolina
3

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4