McKinzie v. Ledezma
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; denying as moot plaintiff's 4 Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; and removing this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 11/9/2012. (cc: petitioner, pro se; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
MICHAEL ANTHONY MCKINZIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-00445
H.A. LEDEZMA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On February 21, 2012, Plaintiff Michael Anthony McKinzie, pro se, filed a handwritten
letter (along with various attachments) complaining about various conditions of his confinement in
the Bureau of Prisons. (Docket 1.)
On February 22, 2012, this Court referred Plaintiff’s motion
to Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley for submission of proposed findings of fact and a
recommendation (“PF&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(b). (Docket 2.) Also on February
22, 2012, the Clerk’s office mailed Plaintiff a § 2241 petition (and related paperwork) and
instructed him to complete the forms and return them within thirty days. (Docket 3.) On March
12, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, but
nonetheless paid the $5.00 filing fee. (Docket 5.) On April 25, 2012, Magistrate Judge Stanley
issued an order directing Plaintiff, among other things, to inform the Court in writing of his intent
to pursue this litigation. (Docket 6.) Plaintiff was again provided with a form § 2241 petition
and again instructed to complete the form. (Id.) On May 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed his § 2241
petition and filed a handwritten motion for a continuance of this case explaining that he was being
transferred to a different prison facility. (Docket 7, 8.) Magistrate Judge Stanley granted
Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance and held this case in abeyance until such time as Plaintiff
arrived at his designated institution. (Docket 9.) On June 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a letter advising
that he was now ready to proceed with this case and submitted additional documentation in support
of his § 2241 petition. (Docket 10, 11.)
On June 18, 2012, Magistrate Judge Stanley issued a PF&R (Docket 12) recommending
that the Court deny Plaintiff’s § 2241 motion, dismiss this case, and deny as moot Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs.1 [Docket 4.]
The Court is not required to review, under a de novo 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition,
failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Petitioner’s right to
appeal this Court’s Order. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United
States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge
Stanley’s PF&R were due on July 5, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). To date, no objections to the PF&R have been filed.
Magistrate Judge Stanley thoroughly addressed and properly rejected each of Plaintiff’s
claims. One additional point should be noted with respect to Plaintiff’s claim that he was
improperly sentenced as a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1. As correctly found by
Magistrate Judge Stanley, Plaintiff’s predicate conviction for interstate travel in aid of a cocaine
distribution racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) is properly construed as
a “controlled substance offense” under USSG § 4B1.2(b). The governing inquiry here is whether
Plaintiff’s underlying conduct for this conviction facilitated the distribution of a controlled
substance. See, e.g., United States v. Shabazz, 233 F.3d 730, 733 (3d Cir. 2000) (affirming
district court’s application of defendant’s prior state felony conviction for using a minor to
facilitate a drug distribution scheme as a career offender predicate felony). For the reasons
well-stated by Magistrate Judge Stanley, Plaintiff’s § 1952(a)(3) conviction was a controlled
substance offense under USSG § 4B1.1.
1
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 3], DENIES AS MOOT
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Docket 4], and
DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
NOVEMBER 9, 2012
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?