Hobbs v. Ray

Filing 22

ORDER. The magistrate judge's 19 report and recommendation is hereby ORDERED ADOPTED. Petitioner's 21 Objections are OVERRULED. Respondent's 11 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the 1 Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to STRIKE this case from the active docket. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 1/6/25. (Pro Se Petitioner via CM/rrr) (lmm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Wheeling
JOSEPH HOBBS,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-202
Judge Bailey

HEATHER RAY,
Respondent.
ORDER
The above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mazzone [Doc. 19]. 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 December 20, 2024, wherein he recommends that the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 11]
be granted and the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. For the reasons that
follow, this Court will adopt the R&R.
I. BACKGROUND1 & 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 novo or any other standard, the

1

This Court fully adopts and incorporates herein the “Factual and Procedural
History” section of the R&R. See [Doc. 19 at 2–5].
1

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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985). Nor is this Court required to conduct a de novo review when the party makes
only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s 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 right to 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 (4th Cir. 1971).
Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Mazzone’s R&R were due within fourteen (14)
days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Petitioner timely filed his objections to the R&R on December 30, 2024.
See [Doc. 21]. Accordingly, this Court will review the portions of the R&R to which
objection was filed under a de novo standard of review. The remainder of the R&R will be
reviewed for clear error.
II. DISCUSSION
Petitioner’s Objections largely repeats his assertions made in his Petition and Reply
briefing; namely, that the sentencing judge ordered his sentences to run concurrent

2

because the state charges were related to the federal conspiracy charge. See [Doc. 21].
Petitioner asserts that when he signed his plea agreement, he “was told that [he] would be
given time served on the state convictions related to the ‘meth conspiracy.’” [Id. at 1].
Petitioner asks this Court to grant his request and give him time served “as the sentencing
judge intended.” [Id. at 2].
As noted by Magistrate Judge Mazzone, the time period for which petitioner seeks
credit has already been credited against his state sentences, and thus he is not entitled to
credit against his federal sentence for this period. [Doc. 19 at 8]. In his filings, including
the instant Objections, petitioner argues that the sentencing judge’s intent “means nothing.”
[Doc. 21 at 1]; see also [Doc. 15 at 2 (“because that was the sentencing judge [sic] original
intention.”)]. However, regardless of the sentencing judge’s intent, the determination of
prior custody credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) is to be computed by the Attorney General,
through the Bureau of Prisons, and not the District Court. United States v. Wilson, 503
U.S. 329, 333 (1992). The calculation of credit for time spent in prior custody is set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3585:
Credit for prior custody.--A defendant shall be given credit toward the service
of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior
to the date the sentence commences-(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or
(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was
arrested after the commission of the offense for which the sentence
was imposed;
that has not been credited against another sentence.
3

18 U.S.C. 3585(b) (emphasis added). The time period for which petitioner seeks credit
was credited against his state sentences. From December 11, 2018, through January 6,
2020, petitioner was serving the state sentences imposed by Virginia in Case Numbers
F19–004 (Wise County, VA), CR18-864 (Scott County, VA), and F18–219 (Lee County,
VA). Petitioner cannot receive prior custody credit for this time because it was “credited
against another sentence.” 18 U.S.C. 3585(b).
Because this Court does not have jurisdiction over the determination of prior custody
credit, and because the time period for which petitioner seeks credit has already been
applied to his state sentences, petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED.
III. CONCLUSION
Aside from the arguments addressed herein, a de novo review of the record
indicates that the magistrate judge’s report accurately summarizes this case and the
applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Doc. 19]
is hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s
report. Petitioner’s Objections [Doc. 21] are OVERRULED. Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] is GRANTED and the
Petition [Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to STRIKE this case from the active docket
of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.

4

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein
and to mail a copy to petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known
address as shown on the docket.
DATED: January 6, 2025.

5