Speight-Bey v. Williams

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: granting 20 Motion to Dismiss; the Petitioners § 2241 Petition [ECF.No. 1 is DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Petitioners pending motion [ECF No. 26 is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk i s DIRECTED to strike this matter from the Courts active docket, enter a separate judgment in favor of the Respondent. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 2/27/17. (njz) copy mailed to pro se pet via cert. return rec't mail (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/27/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (njz).

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

MORRIS SPEIGHT-BEY,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-79
(GROH)

JENNIFER SAAD, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of
the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge James E.
Seibert. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge
Seibert for submission of an R&R. Magistrate Judge Seibert issued his R&R [ECF No.
27] on February 1, 2017. In the R&R, he recommends that the Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition
[ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed with prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, the
court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Seibert’s R&R and DENIES and DISMISSES the
Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition WITH PREJUDICE.
Objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert’s R&R were due within fourteen days of
the Petitioner being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Service was accepted at the Gilmer Federal Correctional Institution in
Glenville, West Virginia, on February 6, 2017, and the Petitioner timely filed arguments in
opposition thereto. The Court is aware of the Petitioner’s pro se status. Pro se pleadings

are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by licensed attorneys. See Gordon
v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). However, although the Court construes
liberally the Petitioner’s arguments in opposition to the R&R, it will not create objections
where none exist.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo
review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s findings to which objection is made.
However, objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R must be specific. See Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 48 (4th Cir. 1982); see also Parker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
4:11cv00030, 2012 WL 1356593, at *3 (W. D. Va. Apr. 19, 2012). General objections or
mere reiterations of arguments already presented to the magistrate judge “have the same
effect as a failure to object,” and thus do not warrant de novo review. Parker, 2012 WL
1356593, at *3 (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also United States v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th
Cir. 2003).

The Court will review the portions of the R&R to which “general and

conclusory” objections have been made for clear error. McGhee v. Colvin, 6:14-cv02644-JMC, 2015 WL 5707866, at *1 (Sept. 25, 2015) (internal quotations and citation
omitted). Here, all of the Petitioner’s arguments are, in some form, reiterations of claims
or factual scenarios already presented. Thus, in the absence of specific objections to the
R&R, this Court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See id. at *2.
Therefore, upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that
Magistrate Judge Seibert’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 27] should be, and is,
hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Accordingly, the

2

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED, the Petitioner’s § 2241
Petition [ECF.No..1] is DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the
Petitioner’s pending motion [ECF No. 26] is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to strike this matter from the Court’s active docket, enter
a separate judgment in favor of the Respondent, and transmit a copy of this Order to the
pro se Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address as
shown on the docket.
DATED: February 27, 2017

3