Holt v. U.S. Parole Commission et al

Filing 17

FINAL ORDER. It is ORDERED that the 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED and that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondents. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 1/4/2017. Copies mailed 1/4/2017. (jmey, )

UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

FILED

COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

JAN - 4 2017
RONALD HOLT

(#21941-37),

CLERK, US DiSraiCT COURT
NOR^ni K. VA

Petitioner,
ACTION NO.

V.

2:15cv529

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
And

ERIC WILSON,

Warden,

Respondents.

FINAL

ORDER

This matter was initiated by petition for a

writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition raises an Ex Post Facto

and due process challenge to the United States Parole Commission's
("Commission") decision denying Petitioner parole.
The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
Rule

72

of

the Rules

of

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and

the United States District

Court

for

Eastern District of Virginia for report and recommendation.
Report of

the Magistrate Judge was

filed on November 21,

the

The
2016,

recommending dismissal of the petition because Petitioner failed to
allege

any

authority,

facts

indicating

the

Commission

acted unconstitutionally,

regulations,

and

failed

to

state

a

exceeded

legal

or failed to follow its own
claim

that

the

violated Holt's due process rights in denying him parole.
1

its

Commission
(ECF No.

15) .

By copy of the report, each party was advised of the right to
file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by
the Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner's

Objections

Recommendation
response

On December 8,
to

the

(Document No.

2016,

Magistrate

the Court received
Judge's

Report

and

16) . The Respondents have filed no

to the Objections and the

time

for doing

so has now

expired.

The

Court,

having

reviewed

the

record

and

examined

the

objections filed by the petitioner to the Magistrate Judge's Report

and having made ^
objected

to,

does

recommendations

novo findings with respect to the portions
hereby

set

forth

adopt
in

and

the

approve

Report

Magistrate Judge filed November 21,

2016,

of

the
the

findings
United

and it is,

and

States

therefore,

ORDERED that the petition (ECF No. 1) be DENIED and DISMISSED and

that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondents.
Petitioner may appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to
this Final Order by filing a written notice of appeal with the
Clerk of this court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street,
Norfolk, Virginia 23510, within sixty (60) days from the date of
entry of such judgment.
Petitioner

Holt

has

failed

to

demonstrate

"a

substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right," therefore,

the

Court declines to issue any certificate of appealability pursuant
to Rule 22(b)

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2

See

Miller-El V.

Cockrell,

123 S.ct.

1029,

1039

(2003).

The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Final Order to Petitioner
and provide an electronic copy of the Final Order to counsel of
record for Respondents.

MARK

S.

DAVIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Norfolk, Virginia

^0-YVV.0XU^4", 201^