Jones v. Hudgins

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. This Court ORDERS that the § 2241 1 petition be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 6/24/20. (Pro Se Petitioner via CM/rrr) (lmm)

Case 5:20-cv-00048-JPB Document 8 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 43

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
WHEELING
MATTHEW JAMES JONES,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-48
(BAILEY)

V.

R. HUDGINS, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mazzone [Doc. 61. Pursuant to this
Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of
a proposed report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R
on May 28, 2020, wherein he recommends the

§

2241 petition be denied and dismissed

without prejudice. For the reasons that follow, this Court will adopt the R&R.

I. BACKGROUND
The petitioner is a federal inmate incarcerated at FCI Gilmer in the Northern District
of West Virginia. Petitioner, acting pro se, initiated this habeas corpus proceeding on March
13,2020, pursuantto 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, challenging the validity of his sentence.

On August

21,2009, petitioner pleaded guiltyto one count of attempting to manufacture fifty (50)grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine in
violation of2l U.S.C. § 846,841 (a)(1 )(b)(1 )(vN), and one count of attempting to manufacture

1

Case 5:20-cv-00048-JPB Document 8 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 44

a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine in violation of
21 U.S.C. §846, 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1 )(C).’ According to the BOP website, petitioner is
scheduled to be released on May 28, 2024.
In support of his § 2241 petition, petitionerargues that based on the decision in United
States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019), he no longer qualifies as a career offender
[Doc. 1]. Based on that decision, petitioner asserts his enhanced sentence for Attempt to
Manufacture Methamphetamines was unlawfully imposed and, thus, entitles him to a
resentencing proceeding [Doc. 1]. Additionally, petitioner relies on the Fourth circuit opinion
in United States v. Whitley, 737 Fed. Appx. 147(2018) in support of his petition. For relief,
petitioner requests that his sentence be vacated, set aside, and held for naught because it
exceeds the statutory maximum and demonstrates thatthe sentences is null and void and no
longer in effect. [Id.].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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, the
court is not required to review, under a de nova or any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation
to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Ar,,, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nor is
this Court required to conduct a de navo review when the party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s

1Taken from petitioner’s criminal docket from the Western District of Michigan, available on
PACER. See United States v. Jones, No. 1:09-cr-il 6-FLM.
2

Case 5:20-cv-00048-JPB Document 8 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 45

proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47(4th Cir.
1982).
In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and
the rightto appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1);

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d

1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94(4th Cir. 1984).

Pro se filings must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by licensed attorneys, however, courts are not required to create objections where
none exist. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520(1972); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147,
1151 (4thCir. 1971).
Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Mazzone’s R&R were due within fourteen (14)
days of receipt of the R&R, pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 ) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of civil Procedure. Having filed no objections within that time frame, petitioner has
waived his right to both de novo review and to appeal this Court’s Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1). Consequently, the R&R will be reviewed for clear error.
III. CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the R&R for clearerror, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report

and Recommendation [Doc. 6] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the
reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS
that the

§

2241 petition [Doc. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and to
STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court.

3

Case 5:20-cv-00048-JPB Document 8 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 46

As a final matter, upon an independent reviewof the record, this Court hereby DENIES
a certificate of appealability, finding that the petitioner has failed to make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2).

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and to
mail a copy to the pro se petitioner.
DATED: juneZj 2020.

HN PRESTON BAILEY
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
U

4