Anderson v. United States of America

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 19 , AND DISMISSING PETITION [DKT. NO. 1 AS MOOT: Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition, Andersons Petition [Dkt. No. 1 is now moot and is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 3/31/21. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
WILLIAM LEE ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
v.

Civ. Action No.1:18-CV-7
(Kleeh)

WARDEN, FCI GILMER,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 19], AND
DISMISSING PETITION [DKT. NO. 1] AS MOOT
On January 12, 2018, pro se Petitioner, William Lee Anderson,
(“Anderson” or “Petitioner”), filed a petition for habeas corpus
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of
his career offender enhanced sentence [Dkt. No. 1].
of

the

filing,

Petitioner

was

incarcerated

at

At the time
FCI

Gilmer.

Petitioner filed a memorandum in support titled “Motion Under §
1651 All Writs Motion,” a motion to proceed as a pauper, and a
copy of his Prisoner Trust Account Report with Ledger Sheets.
[Dkt.

Nos.

2,

3,

4].

By

order

entered

February

13,

2018,

Petitioner Anderson was granted permission to proceed as a pauper
and directed to pay the five-dollar filing fee [Dkt. No. 7], which
he paid on February 26, 2018 [Dkt. No. 9].
Pursuant to Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation Procedure (“LR
PL P”) 2, the case was referred to the magistrate judge for a

Anderson v. Warden, FCI Gilmer

1:18-CV-7

review and report and recommendation (“R&R”).

The R&R was issued

on August 12, 2020, and recommended that the petition be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction [Dkt. No. 19].
The

facts

of

Petitioner’s

underlying

detailed in the R&R [Dkt. No. 19 at 2-4].

criminal

case

are

Petitioner was named in

a March 21, 2012, six-count drug distribution Indictment 1 [Dkt.
No. 1, Case No. 3:12cr28].

On June 27, 2012, the Government filed

a Notice of Information of Anderson’s prior felony convictions
[Dkt. No. 28, Case No. 3:12cr28], and on July 30, 2012, Petitioner
pled guilty to Count Seven of the Indictment pursuant to a written
plea

agreement

Petitioner’s

[Dkt.

November

Nos.

35,

5,

2012,

36,

Case

No.

sentencing

3:12cr28].
hearing,

he

At
was

categorized as a career offender and sentenced to 188 months
imprisonment followed by 6 years of supervised release [Dkt. No.
46, Case No. 3:12cr28].
Anderson appealed the sentence and an Anders 2 brief was filed
on his behalf [Dkt. No. 50, Case No. 3:12cr28].

By unpublished

per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of
the district court [Dkt. No. 61, Case No. 3:12cr28].

Anderson

filed a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§
The information related to Petitioner’s underlying criminal case
is taken from the criminal docket in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Case No.
3:12cr28.
1

2

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2

Anderson v. Warden, FCI Gilmer

1:18-CV-7

3584(c)(2), which was denied by Order entered on November 5, 2015
[Dkt. No. 64, Case No. 3:12cr28].

Anderson filed a motion to

vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on May 9, 2016, and moved to
voluntarily dismiss his motion on February 23, 2017 [Dkt. Nos. 65,
78].

On March 7, 2017, the § 2255 motion was dismissed [Dkt. No.

84, Case No. 3:12cr28].
On December 2, 2019, Anderson moved for a sentence reduction
under the First Step Act of 2018, and the motion was denied on
March 17, 2020 [Dkt. Nos. 86, 94].

Anderson appealed and on August

19, 2020, the case was remanded to the district court for further
proceedings
supplemental

[Dkt.

No.

authority

105,

Case

supporting

No.

3:12cr28].

the

motion

Notices

of

filed

on

were

Anderson’s behalf [Dkt. Nos. 106, 112, 114, Case No. 3:12cr28],
and

on

February

17,

2021,

an

Order

was

entered

granting

Petitioner’s motion for sentence reduction with a judgment of time
served and 6 years supervised release [Dkt. No. 115, Case No.
3:12cr28].

Petitioner

was

released

from

custody

and

his

supervision commenced on February 23, 2021 [Dkt. No. 118, Case No.
3:12cr28].
With the § 2241 petition, Anderson challenged his predicate
convictions for his career offender sentence, and requested that
his “illegal” career offender enhancement be removed [Dkt. No. 1].
The magistrate judge found the petition under § 2241 to be improper
because Petitioner challenged the validity of his sentence rather
3

Anderson v. Warden, FCI Gilmer

1:18-CV-7

than its execution [Dkt. No. 19 at 6-11]. Because Petitioner could
not satisfy the savings clause provision of § 2255 for his claim
to be considered under § 2241, the magistrate judge recommended
that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice [Id. at 11].
The R&R states that “any party shall have fourteen days
(filing of objections) and then three days (mailing/service), from
the date of filing this Report and Recommendation within which to
file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections,
identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objection is made, and the basis of such objection” [Dkt. No. 19
at 11].

It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to file written

objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by
the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit
Court of Appeals” [Id.].

Petitioner accepted service of the R&R

on August 12, 2020 [Dkt. No. 20].

No objections were filed.

When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review
de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Otherwise, “the Court may adopt,

without

of

explanation,

any

the

magistrate

recommendations” to which there are no objections.

judge’s

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)).

Courts will

uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been
made unless they are clearly erroneous.
4

See Diamond v. Colonial

Anderson v. Warden, FCI Gilmer

1:18-CV-7

Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review
and the R&R was reviewed for clear error.

Finding no clear error,

the Court ADOPTS the R&R [Dkt. No. 19] except to the extent that
it recommends the dismissal be without prejudice.

Petitioner is

no longer in federal custody as he was released on standard
conditions by Order entered on February 17, 2021, in Case No.
3:12cr28.

Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the

Petition, Anderson’s Petition [Dkt. No. 1] is now moot and is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to STRIKE this matter
from the Court’s active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel of record and to the pro se Plaintiff, via certified mail,
return receipt requested, at the last known address as shown on
the docket.
DATED: March 31, 2021
/s/ Thomas S. Kleeh
THOMAS S. KLEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5