Hill v. Von Blanckensee

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DKT. NO. 25 AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE DKT. NO. 1 . Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 25); GRANTS the respondents Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment ( Dkt. No. 14); DENIES Hills Motion for Rule 56 Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 17) and DISMISSES Hills Petition WITH PREJUDICE Dkt. No. [1). Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order, andto remove this case from the Courts active docket. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 2/12/2017. (copy counsel of record via CM/ECF, copy pro se petitioner via certified mail)(jmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/12/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jmm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

ANTOINE HILL,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL NO. 1:16CV231
(Judge Keeley)

B. VON BLANCKENSEE,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25] AND
DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
On December 7, 2016, the pro se petitioner, Robert Antoine
Hill

(“Hill”),

filed

the

pending

Petition

for

Habeas

Corpus

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Dkt. No. 1). As his sole
ground for relief, Hill claims that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
improperly failed to allot him 48 days of good time credit. More
particularly, he contends “education staff should have documented
[he] was out of the literacy program for legal purposes,” and thus
capable of continuing to accrue full good time credit.

Id. at 5,

8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules, the
Court referred Hill’s Petition to the Honorable Robert W. Trumble,
United States Magistrate Judge, for initial review.
On April 5, 2017, the respondent moved to dismiss the Petition
or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing it had
appropriately reduced Hill’s good time credit due to a disciplinary
infraction and his voluntary withdrawal from the GED program (Dkt.
No. 14-1 at 7). The respondent also contended that Hill was never

HILL v. VON BLANCKENSEE

1:16CV231

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25] AND
DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
exempt from participation in the GED program for any “legal
purpose” (Dkt. No. 23).
In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) entered on January 4,
2018, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommended that the Court grant the
respondent’s motion and dismiss Hill’s Petition with prejudice
(Dkt. No. 25). He reasoned that several circumstances supported the
BOP’s decision not to credit Hill with the full amount of good time
credit. First, Hill was found guilty of a disciplinary infraction,
which put him in bad standing with the GED program. In addition,
Hill voluntarily withdrew from the GED program and remained so
during the relevant four-year period. The R&R concluded that either
of these circumstances adequately supported the BOP’s reduction in
Hill’s good time credit. Id. at 10-11.
The R&R also informed the parties of their right to file
“written objections identifying the portions of the recommendation
to which objection is made and the basis of such objection.” Id. at
11. It further warned that failure to do so may result in waiver of
the right to appeal. Id. at 12. Although Hill received the R&R on
January 8, 2018, he has not objected.
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review
de novo only portions to which an objection has been timely made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). On the other hand, “the Court may adopt,
2

HILL v. VON BLANCKENSEE

1:16CV231

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25] AND
DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
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. 2005)). Courts will uphold those
portions of the 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).
Because

no

party

has

objected,

the

Court

is

under

no

obligation to conduct a de novo review. Dellacirprete, 479 F. Supp.
at 603-04. Upon review of the R&R and the record for clear error,
the Court:
1)

ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 25);

2)

GRANTS the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 14);

3)

DENIES Hill’s Motion for Rule 56 Summary Judgment (Dkt.
No. 17); and

4)

DISMISSES Hill’s Petition WITH PREJUDICE (Dkt. No. 1).

It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order
to counsel of record and the pro se petitioner, certified mail and

3

HILL v. VON BLANCKENSEE

1:16CV231

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 25] AND
DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
return receipt requested, to enter a separate judgment order, and
to remove this case from the Court’s active docket.
DATED: February 12, 2018.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4