Watson v. Saad

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING RESPONDENT'S 21 MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUD ICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 7/11/17. (copies to Pro Se Petitioner via CM/rrr; ounsel via CM/ECF) (lmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/11/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (lmm).

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

Civil Action No. 5:16CV66
(STAMP)

JOSEPH COAKLEY, Warden,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I.

Procedural History

The pro se1 petitioner, Brenda Watson, filed a petition for
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“§ 2241”).

In her petition

for habeas corpus, the petitioner seeks an order directing the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to credit her release date with thirteen
months time served as recommended in her sentencing order.

The

action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert W.
Trumble for initial review and report and recommendation pursuant
to Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation Procedure 2.
Thereafter, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in
the alternative, motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge
issued a Roseboro Notice to the petitioner, but the petitioner did

1

“Pro se” describes a person who represents himself in a court
proceeding without the assistance of a lawyer.
Black’s Law
Dictionary 1416 (10th ed. 2014).

not file a response to the respondent’s motion.

The magistrate

judge then filed a report and recommendation recommending that this
Court

grant

the

respondent’s

motion

to

dismiss

or,

in

the

alternative, motion for summary judgment and deny and dismiss with
prejudice the § 2241 petition.

The magistrate judge informed the

parties that if they objected to any portion of the report and
recommendation, they were required to file written objections
within 14 days after being served with copies of the report.
Neither party filed objections.
II.

Facts

The petitioner was charged with embezzlement by a federal
grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia while in state custody.

Thus, the Court

borrowed the petitioner from state custody pursuant to a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum.

The petitioner pled guilty to one

count of embezzlement, and the Court sentenced her to 24 months
imprisonment and directed that the 24-month federal sentence would
“run

consecutively

to

the

defendant’s

imprisonment

under

any

previously imposed state sentence.” The Court recommended that the
petitioner “be given credit for time served since August 28, 2013,”
and the petitioner was returned to state custody on September 22,
2014, upon satisfaction of the federal writ.
West Virginia state authorities discharged the petitioner’s
state sentence and released her into federal custody on May 19,

2

2015.

The BOP’s subsequent federal sentence computation for the

petitioner reflects a 24-month term of confinement commencing on
May 19, 2015, with no prior custody credit.

Based on that

computation, the petitioner was scheduled to be released from
federal custody on February 13, 2017.
In support of his motion to dismiss or, alternatively, motion
for summary judgment, the respondent argues that (1) the BOP
properly

determined

that

the

petitioner’s

federal

sentence

commenced on May 19, 2015, when she was released to federal
custody; and (2) the BOP properly calculated that the petitioner
was not entitled to have her federal sentence reduced to reflect
the time that the Court borrowed her from state custody to address
federal embezzlement charges.
For the reasons that follow, this Court finds that the report
and recommendation of the magistrate judge should be adopted in its
entirety.
III.

Applicable Law

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de
novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge’s recommendation
to which objection is timely made.
file

any

objections

to

the

Because the petitioner did not

report

and

recommendation,

the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations will be upheld
unless they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
§ 636(b)(1)(A).

3

28 U.S.C.

IV.

Discussion

This Court finds that the magistrate judge correctly found
that, because the petitioner received credit toward her state
sentence for the entire duration of her federal writ, statutory
mandates preclude her from receiving duplicative credit for that
time toward her federal sentence.

18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); see United

States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992) (holding that, under
§ 3585(b), “Congress made clear that a defendant could not receive
double credit for his detention time”).

The magistrate judge

acknowledged that the sentencing court did recommend that the
petitioner be given credit for the time she was borrowed pursuant
to the federal writ, but the magistrate judge also correctly
pointed out that a sentencing court does not have the authority to
compute

or

apply

prior

custody

credits

to

a

federal

prison

sentence. The BOP has the exclusive authority to compute a federal
offender’s prison sentence and was unable to honor the district
judge’s

recommendation

because

the

recommendation

authorized by federal statute or BOP policies.

was

not

See Wilson, 503

U.S. at 335 (“After a district court sentences a federal offender,
the Attorney General, through the BOP, has the responsibility for
administering the sentence.”).
Additionally, the magistrate judge correctly found that the
case is now moot because the petitioner was released from federal
custody on February 13, 2017.

See Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S.

4

486, 496 (1969) (“[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no
longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in
the outcome.”); Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690,
698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of
adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the
outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the
requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”). In filing
her petition, the petitioner’s ultimate goal was to be released
from federal custody sooner than the projected satisfaction date of
February 13, 2017, as calculated by the Designation and Sentence
Computation Center.

Thus, in light of her release, the magistrate

judge is correct that there is no relief that this Court can
provide to the petitioner.
V.

Conclusion

Because the parties have not objected to the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge, and because this Court
finds that the magistrate judge’s recommendation is not clearly
erroneous, the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
(ECF No. 25) is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.

Additionally, the

respondent’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED.

5

It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
Finally, this Court finds that the petitioner was properly
advised by the magistrate judge that failure to timely object to
the report and recommendation in this action would result in a
waiver of appellate rights.

Because the petitioner has failed to

object, she has waived her right to seek appellate review of this
matter.

See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 844-45 (4th Cir.

1985).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein and to the pro se
petitioner by certified mail.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this
matter.
DATED:

July 11, 2017

/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6