Genny Rivas v. Eric Wilson

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 12/22/2015. (sbea, )

DEC 23 2io y

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND. VA

GENNY RIVAS,

Petitioner,
V.

Civil Action No. 3; 14CV719

ERIC WILSON,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Genny Rivas, a former federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus ("§ 2241 Petition," ECF No. 3). In his § 2241 Petition, Rivas sought
admittance to the Bureau of Prisons' residential substance abuse program with its related one-

year reduction to his term of imprisonment for successful completion of that program. (§ 2241

Pet. 5 (as paginated by CM/ECF).) Respondent moved for summary judgment on the ground
that the § 2241 Petition should be dismissed as moot because Rivas has been released from
incarceration. On November 18,2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation that recommended dismissing the action as moot. The Court advised Rivas
that he could file objections within fourteen (14) days al\er the entry of the Report and

Recommendation.' More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the November
18, 2015 Report and Recommendation and Rivas has not filed objections.
"The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
court." Estrada v. Wiikowski, 816 F. Supp. 408, 410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mailiews v. Weber,

423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination ofthose portions

' On December 7, 2015, the United States Postal Service returned the Report and
Recommendation sent to Rivas because Rivas moved and failed to provide a forwarding address.

of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The filing ofobjections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to
focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties' dispute."

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). In the absence of a specific written objection, this
Court may adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation without conducting a de novo review.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 4\6 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).
There being no objections, the Report and Recommendation will be ACCEPTED and

ADOPTED. The Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) will be GRANTED and the
§ 2241 Petition will be DISMISSED as MOOT. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) will be
DENIED as MOOT.

An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Richmond, Virginia

kl

James R. Spencer
Senior U. S. Disirici Judge