Call v. Saad et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER'S 2 MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. The petitioner's 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the petitioner's right to file a Bivens action 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 12/5/17. (Pro Se Petitioner via CM/rrr) (lmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/5/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (lmm).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
KENNETH CHAD CALL,
Civil Action No. 5:17CV64
WARDEN SAAD and BUREAU OF PRISON
NATIONAL MEDICAL DIRECTOR, Overseer
of the “Evaluation and Management of
Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Infection
Guidelines” Treatment Program/Policy,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The pro se1 petitioner, Kenneth Chad Call, filed a petition
petitioner also filed a motion for injunctive relief from the
Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Infection” policy. The action was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert for initial
review and report and recommendation pursuant to Local Rule of
Prisoner Litigation Procedure 2.
“Pro se” describes a person who represents himself in a court
proceeding without the assistance of a lawyer.
Dictionary 1416 (10th ed. 2014).
recommending that this matter be dismissed without prejudice to the
petitioner’s right to file an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (a
The magistrate judge also recommended that the
petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief be denied as moot.
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.
The pro se petitioner is currently incarcerated at FCI-Gilmer,
where he is serving a sentence imposed by the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The
petitioner contends that he has contracted hepatitis C, which he
describes as a chronic, contagious liver disease.
medication they have available, known as Direct-Acting Antivirals.”
ECF No. 1 at 5.
In his petition and in his motion for injunctive
relief, the petitioner seeks an order enjoining the BOP from
continuing to apply its October 2016 “Evaluation and Management of
Chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Infection” policy.
antivirals to treat hepatitis C, without taking into consideration
the prisoner’s fibrosis score.
The BOP’s October 2016 policy
classifies prisoners with a score of stage 0 to stage 1 fibrosis on
their liver biopsy as being “Low Priority for Treatment,” subject
to certain exceptions.
ECF No. 2-1 at 13.
For the reasons that follow, this Court finds that the report
and recommendation of the magistrate judge should be adopted in its
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.
Because the petitioner did not
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations will be upheld
unless they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
In his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge found
that the petition is not an attack on, nor are its claims in any
magistrate judge determined that the petitioner is complaining of
the conditions of his confinement and possibly alleging an Eighth
Amendment violation. Thus, the magistrate judge concluded that the
petition cannot proceed under § 2241, which allows a prisoner to
attack the manner in which his sentence is executed.
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498 (1973) (describing the “heart of
[a] habeas corpus [petition]” as a petitioner “challenging the fact
immediate release or a speedier release from that confinement”).
The magistrate judge noted that the case would have to proceed as
a Bivens action, which allows individuals to sue a federal actor
for constitutional violations.
See Hall v. Clinton, 235 F.3d 202,
204 (4th Cir. 2000) (describing a Bivens action as “a judicially
constitutional rights by federal actors”).
This Court finds no
error in the determinations of the magistrate judge and thus
upholds his recommendation.
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. 7) 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.
petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 2) is DENIED AS
It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to the petitioner’s right to file a Bivens action 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, he has waived his right to seek appellate review of this
See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 844-45 (4th Cir.
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
December 5, 2017
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?