Fallin v. Coakly et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 19] AND GRANTING RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 11]. Court ADOPTS the R&R Dkt. No. 19 ; GRANTS the Respondents Motion t o Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment Dkt. No. 11 ; GRANTS the Respondents Motion to File Document UnderSeal Dkt. No. 12 ; and DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Petition Dkt.No. 1 . Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 6/13/2017. (copy Pro Se plaintiff via certified mail)(jmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/13/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jmm).

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV193
(Judge Keeley)

JOSEPH COAKLEY, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[DKT. NO. 19] AND GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 11]
On

September

29,

2016,

the

petitioner,

Gerner

Fallin

(“Fallin”), filed the pending Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Dkt. No. 1). In the Petition,
Fallin argues that he was deprived of due process because neither
his attorney nor his sentencing court notified him that he would
not receive credit for time spent in a community drug treatment
center

as

a

condition

of

his

pretrial

release

on

personal

recognizance (Dkt. No. 1-1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and LR PL
P 2, the Court referred the Petition to the Honorable James E.
Seibert, United States Magistrate Judge, for initial review. After
being directed to show cause why the Petition should not be granted
(Dkt. No. 6), the respondent moved to dismiss the Petition or, in
the alternative, for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 11).
In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated May 19, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Seibert recommended that Fallin’s Petition be
denied and dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. No. 19 at 12). Noting

FALLIN V. COAKLEY

1:16CV193

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[DKT. NO. 19] AND GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 11]
that Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that Fallin is not
entitled to credit, the R&R concluded that he “can hardly claim a
due process violation for a liberty interest in a credit to a
sentence, if [] his release on bond never entitled him to one in
the first place.” Id. The R&R also informed Fallin of his right to
file any objections to the recommendations within fourteen (14)
days following his receipt of the R&R. Id. at 12-13; see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Although he received the R&R on May 23, 2017
(Dkt. No. 20), Fallin 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
Fallin has not filed any objections, the Court’s review of the R&R
is for clear error.
Upon review of 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. 19). Therefore, the Court:
2

FALLIN V. COAKLEY

1:16CV193

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[DKT. NO. 19] AND GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 11]
1.

ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 19);

2.

GRANTS the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the
Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11);

3.

GRANTS the Respondent’s Motion to File Document Under
Seal (Dkt. No. 12); and

4.

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

It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order
and to transmit copies of both orders to counsel of record and to
the pro se petitioner, certified mail and return receipt requested.
DATED: June 13, 2017.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3