West v. Saad

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DKT. NO. 32 , GRANTING RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DKT. NO. 24 , AND DENYING AND DISMISSING § 2241 PETITION WITH PREJUDICE DKT. NO. 1 . It is so ORDERED, the C ourt ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 32); OVERRULES Wests objections (Dkt. No. 34); GRANTS the respondents motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24); DENIES AS MOOT Wests Motion for Defense (Dkt. No. 23); and DENIES the Petitio n (Dkt. No. 1) and DISMISSES this caseWITH PREJUDICE. Clerk is further DIRECTED to enter a separate judgment order and to remove this case from the Courts active docket. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 6/30/2017. (Copy counsel of record, copy pro se petitioner via certified mail)(jmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/30/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jmm).

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

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV143
(Judge Keeley)

JENNIFER SAAD, Warden,

Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 32],
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 24], AND DENYING AND
DISMISSING § 2241 PETITION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
On June 29, 2016, the pro se petitioner, Ronald West (“West”),
filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(“Petition”). West claims that Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) staff at
Federal Correctional Institution, Allenwood, violated his First and
Fifth Amendment rights in connection with the adjudication of two
disciplinary incident reports. In both instances, the Disciplinary
Hearing Officer (“DHO”) found that West had violated prison rules
and sanctioned him with the revocation of good time credit and the
loss of various other privileges. West argues that the incident
reports contained false accusations meant to retaliate against him
for filing grievances regarding staff misconduct. In addition, he
contends

that

the

BOP

prevented

him

from

exhausting

his

administrative remedies when it failed to respond to his grievances
regarding the incident reports.

WEST V. SAAD

1:16CV143

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 32],
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 24], AND DENYING AND
DISMISSING § 2241 PETITION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and LR PL P 2, the Court referred
the Petition to the Honorable Robert W. Trumble, United States
Magistrate Judge, for initial review. After being directed to show
cause, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively,
for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24). Although she acknowledged that
West had technically exhausted his claims, the respondent argued
that 1) West’s claims are not cognizable under § 2241 because he is
serving a life sentence, which will not necessarily be reduced by
a

favorable

disciplinary

ruling;

2)

proceedings

West
at

received
issue;

due
and

process
3)

in

West’s

both
other

constitutional claims are not cognizable under § 2241, but rather
must be pursued in a civil rights action (Dkt. No. 25).
In a thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), Magistrate Judge Trumble recommended that the Court deny
and dismiss the Petition. After outlining the requirements of due
process in prison disciplinary proceedings, he carefully reviewed
each

incident

report

and

the

record

of

West’s

disciplinary

proceedings, id. at 2-8, and concluded that, in each case, the BOP
had provided West with the appropriate procedural safeguards and
had based its decision on sufficient evidence. Id. at 14-16.
Further, Magistrate Judge Trumble agreed with the respondent that
2

WEST V. SAAD

1:16CV143

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 32],
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 24], AND DENYING AND
DISMISSING § 2241 PETITION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
the appropriate vehicle for West’s constitutional claims is a civil
rights action. Id. at 14.
The R&R also informed West of his right to file “written
objections identifying the portions of the Recommendation to which
objections are made, and the basis for such objections.” Id. at 17.
It further warned him that the failure to do so may result in
waiver of his right to appeal. Id. Now pending are Magistrate Judge
Trumble’s R&R, as well as West’s timely objections (Dkt. No. 34).
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review
de novo only the portions to which an objection is timely made. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). On the other hand, “the Court may adopt,
without explanation, any of the magistrate judge’s recommendations
to which the prisoner does not object.” Dellacirprete 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)). Courts will uphold those
portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made
unless they are “clearly erroneous.” See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Vague objections to an R&R distract a district court from
“focusing on disputed issues” and defeat the purpose of an initial
screening by the magistrate judge. McPherson v. Astrue, 605 F.
3

WEST V. SAAD

1:16CV143

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 32],
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 24], AND DENYING AND
DISMISSING § 2241 PETITION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
Supp. 2d 744, 749 (S.D.W. Va. 2009) (citing Howard’s Yellow Cabs,
Inc. v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 469, 474 (W.D.N.C. 1997)).
Failure to raise specific errors waives the claimant’s right to a
de novo review because “general and conclusory” objections do not
warrant such review. Id. (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44,
47 (4th Cir. 1982); Howard’s Yellow Cabs, 987 F. Supp. at 474); see
also Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F. Supp. 2d 723 (S.D.W. Va. 2009).
Indeed, failure to file specific objections waives appellate review
of both factual and legal questions. See United States v. Schronce,
727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Moore v. United
States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Here, West’s objections fail to identify any specific errors
in Magistrate Judge Trumble’s findings, and, in fact, contain no
reference to the R&R (Dkt. No. 34). Rather, West summarizes the
factual and procedural background of the case, reiterates his claim
that the incident reports at issue contained false allegations, and
requests that the Court grant his Petition. Id. at 1-6. These
reiterations and general contentions, which were fully and fairly
addressed in the R&R, place the Court under no obligation to
conduct a de novo review. Diamond, 414 F.3d at 315. Therefore, upon
review of the R&R and the record for clear error, the Court adopts
4

WEST V. SAAD

1:16CV143

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 32],
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 24], AND DENYING AND
DISMISSING § 2241 PETITION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
the opinion of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons discussed in
the R&R (Dkt. No. 19). In conclusion, the Court:
1.

ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 32);

2.

OVERRULES West’s objections (Dkt. No. 34);

3.

GRANTS

the

respondent’s

motion

to

dismiss

or,

alternatively, for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24);
4.

DENIES AS MOOT West’s “Motion for Defense” (Dkt. No. 23);
and

5.

DENIES the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) and DISMISSES this case
WITH PREJUDICE.

It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order
to counsel of record and to the pro se petitioner, certified mail,
return receipt requested. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to enter a
separate judgment order and to remove this case from the Court’s
active docket.
Dated: June 30, 2017.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5