Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 9 ) AND TRANSFERRING CASE. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's 9 Report and Recommendation, construes the 1 Petition and Complaint as a Bivens action and transfers this case to the Eastern District of North Carolina. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 6/19/17. (Copy PS Petitioner via cert. mail)(mh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/19/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (mh).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
STEVEN MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV71
(Judge Keeley)

BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 9] AND TRANSFERRING CASE
On

April

25,

2016,

the

petitioner,

Steven

Martinez

(“Martinez”), filed the pending Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Dkt. No. 1). Martinez indicated
that the Petition concerns “prison disciplinary proceedings,” and
requested “that the remainder of [his] property held at Federal
Medical Center, Butner” be forwarded to him without cost. Id. at 1,
8. As more fully outlined in the administrative grievances attached
to the Petition, Martinez contends that Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
staff at Federal Medical Center, Butner (“FMC Butner”) failed to
properly convey his property when he was transferred to United
States Penitentiary, Coleman (“USP Coleman”) (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 11).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and LR PL P 2, the Court referred the
Petition to the Honorable Michael J. Aloi, United States Magistrate
Judge, for initial review.
Thereafter, on November 19, 2016, Martinez filed a “complaint”
in this case, alleging that various BOP employees at FMC Butner had

MARTINEZ V. BOP

1:16CV71

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 9] AND TRANSFERRING CASE
retaliated against him and deprived him of his constitutional
rights (Dkt. No. 7 at 1-2). More particularly, Martinez alleges
that his case manager and the case manager coordinator at FMC
Butner retaliated against him, in violation of his Fifth Amendment
rights, by “placing him on transfer status.” He further contends
that a correctional officer at FMC Butner violated his Fourth
Amendment rights during the transfer of his property to USP
Coleman. Id. at 5. Among other things, Martinez seeks declaratory
relief and the return of his personal property. Id. at 6.
In his Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated May 22, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Aloi reasoned that Martinez cannot seek relief
under § 2241 because “it is clear that his petition is not an
attack on, nor are its claims related in any way to, the execution
of his sentence.” Rather, Martinez is seeking to vindicate the
alleged violation of his constitutional rights (Dkt. No. 9 at 4).
The magistrate judge reasoned that to pursue the claims he raises,
Martinez “must file[] a lawsuit governed by Bivens v. Six Unknown
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 399 (1971),”1
in

the

district

where

the

alleged

1

constitutional

violations

In Bivens, the Supreme Court permitted suit against federal
employees in their individual capacity, creating a counterpart to
suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2

MARTINEZ V. BOP

1:16CV71

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 9] AND TRANSFERRING CASE
occurred (Dkt. No. 9 at 4). Noting that a dismissal of the case
without prejudice might leave Martinez time-barred from filing his
case in the proper court, the R&R recommended that the Court
transfer this case as a Bivens action to the Eastern District of
North Carolina, where FMC Butner is located. Id. The R&R also
informed Martinez of his right to file any objections to the
recommendations within fourteen (14) days following his receipt of
the R&R. Id. at 4-5; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Although he
received the R&R on May 25, 2017 (Dkt. No. 10), Martinez has not
filed any objections.
This Court is required to review de novo only those portions
of the magistrate judge’s findings to which specific objection is
made. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603-04
(N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th
Cir. 1983)). “[T]he Court may adopt, without explanation, any of
the magistrate judge’s recommendations to which the prisoner does
not object.” Id. at 604 (citing Camby, 718 F.2d at 199). Because
Martinez has not filed any objections, the Court’s review of the
R&R is for clear error.
After reviewing the R&R and the record, the Court adopts the
opinion of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons discussed in the
R&R (Dkt. No. 9). It therefore:
3

MARTINEZ V. BOP

1:16CV71

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 9] AND TRANSFERRING CASE
1.

ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 9);

2.

CONSTRUES the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) and complaint (Dkt.
No. 7) as a Bivens action; and

3.

TRANSFERS this case to the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit copies of this order
to the pro se

petitioner, certified mail and return receipt

requested.
DATED: June 19, 2017.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4