Richard v. Vasquez

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this petition be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 7/8/13. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DAVID RICHARD,
Petitioner,
versus
WARDEN VASQUEZ,
Respondent.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-262

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner David Richard, a prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241.
The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United
States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and
orders of this court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the petition without
prejudice.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Petitioner filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes
the objections are without merit. Citing Braddy v. Fox, 476 F. App’x 51 (5th Cir. 2012),

petitioner argues that he is allowed to challenge the conditions of his confinement in a habeas
petition. In Braddy, the petitioner claimed that the government breached a term in the written plea
agreement by housing him in close proximity with his co-defendants. The Fifth Circuit remanded
the case to the district court to determine whether the plea agreement was breached. In this case,
unlike Braddy, petitioner does not assert that a provision in his plea agreement requires the Bureau
of Prisons to provide specific conditions of confinement. Rather, petitioner argues that his plea
agreement implicitly guarantees him conditions of confinement required by contracts, statutes,
regulations, ordinances and rules governing the Bureau of Prisons. This argument lacks merit.
Whether the Bureau of Prisons is providing petitioner with the conditions of confinement to which
he is entitled is not a matter for habeas review.
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.

The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate
judge’s recommendation.
.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 8th day of July, 2013.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2