Leverett v. United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 12/15/2017. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (walk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

LARRY LEVERETT,

Petitioner,
V.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV23

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et ah.

Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Larry Leverett, a federal inmate proceedingpro se, filed this petition for habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("§ 2241 Petition," EOFNo. 1) claiming the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")

had improperly calculated his sentence. On November 28, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a

Report and Recommendation wherein he recommended denying Leverett's § 2241 Petition
because the BOP has properly calculated Leverett's sentence pursuant to its granted authority.

(ECF No. 15.) The Court advised Leverett that he couldfile objections within fourteen (14) days
after the entry of the Report and Recommendation. Leveretthas not responded.

"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. Witkowski, 816 F. Supp. 408, 410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber,
423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions

of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The filing of objections 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. ColonialLife & Accident Ins. Co.^ 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).

There being no objections, and the Court having determined that the Report and
Recommendation is correct on its merits, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) will be
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

The Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) will be

GRANTED. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) will be DISMISSED as moot. Leverett's

§ 2241 Petition (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. Leverett's claims and the action will be
DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED.

An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

M.

John A. Gibney, Jr.
Date:

Richmond, Virginia

United States District Ji