Mata v. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

MARTINSBURG

JOSE LUIS MATA,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:23-CV-112

(GROH)

R. BROWN,

Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Currently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) entered by

United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 27. Pursuant to the Local

Rules of Prisoner Litigation Procedure, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge

Trumble for submission of an R&R. In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble

recommends (1) the Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 [ECF No. 8] be denied and dismissed with prejudice and (2) the Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 16] be granted.

ECF No. 27 at 16. After being granted an extension of time by this Court [ECF No. 30],

the Petitioner filed his objections to the R&R. ECF No. 32. Accordingly, this matter is now

ripe for adjudication.

I. Background

On June 5, 2023, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting three claims for relief. See ECF No. 8 at 10–11. First, the

Petitioner asserts the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) arbitrarily denied him credit for time

served related to a prior conviction “involving the same type of offense and conduct

involved.” Id. at 10. Second, the Petitioner alleges the district court erroneously applied a

sentencing enhancement based upon an uncharged homicide. See id. at 11. Third, the

Petitioner avers he received ineffective assistance of counsel when “defense counsel

recommended for the [P]etitioner to enter a guilty plea without resolving whether the

homicide could be used to enhance the [P]etitioner’s base offense level.” Id. at 11(a).

Upon reviewing the record, the Court finds that the background and facts as

explained in the R&R accurately and succinctly describe the circumstances underlying

the Petitioner’s claims. For ease of review, the Court incorporates those facts herein.

II. Legal Standards

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

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). Further, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review

and the Petitioner’s 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). Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, “written objections shall identify

each portion of the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition that is being challenged

and shall specify the basis for each objection.” LR PL P 12(b). The Local Rules also

prohibit objections that “exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten

pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page

limitation.” LR PL P 12(d).

“When a party does make objections, but these objections are so general or

conclusory that they fail to direct the district court to any specific error by the magistrate

judge, de novo review is unnecessary.” Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F. Supp. 2d 723,

730 (S.D. W.Va. 2009) (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)).

“When only a general objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge’s report-

recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to only a

clear error review.” Williams v. New York State Div. of Parole, No. 9:10-CV-1533

(GTS/DEP), 2012 WL 2873569, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012). “Similarly, when an

objection merely reiterates the same arguments made by the objecting party in its original

papers submitted to the magistrate judge, the Court subjects that portion of the report-

recommendation challenged by those arguments to only a clear error review.” Taylor v.

Astrue, 32 F. Supp. 3d 253, 260–61 (N.D.N.Y. 2012).

Courts have also held that when a party’s objection lacks adequate specificity, the

party waives that objection. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766

(2d Cir. 2002) (finding that even though a party filed objections to the magistrate judge’s

R&R, they were not specific enough to preserve the claim for review). Bare statements

“devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendations . . . and unsupported by

legal authority, [are] not sufficient.” Id. at 766. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules, “referring the court to previously filed papers or

arguments does not constitute an adequate objection.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

LR PL P 12. Finally, the Fourth Circuit has long held, “[a]bsent objection, we do not believe

that any explanation need be given for adopting [an R&R].” Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d

198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983) (finding that without an objection, no explanation whatsoever is

required of the district court when adopting an R&R).

III. Analysis

In his filing [ECF No. 32], the Petitioner raises one substantive objection to the

magistrate judge’s R&R. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that the doctrine of res judicata

is inapplicable to Claim One of his Petition because he is actually innocent of the homicide

underlying his sentencing enhancement. ECF No. 32 at 1–5 (citing Alaimalo v.

U.S., 645 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2011)).

The Petitioner’s reliance on Alaimalo is misplaced. Here, the magistrate judge’s

R&R recommends dismissal of Claim One pursuant to the “abuse of the writ” doctrine,

arguing, because the Petitioner “challenges his federal custody on the same ground

which he advanced in an earlier habeas petition and lost after a full and fair litigation of

his claim,” he “is guilty of ‘abuse of the writ.’” ECF No. 27 at 12–13. The court in Alaimalo,

however, explicitly did not reach the issue of the “abuse of the writ” doctrine because the

government failed to plead it. Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1049. Moreover, and unlike Alaimalo,

the Petitioner does not point to any intervening change in the law between his prior

petition and the present one to support an argument that his claim was previously

unavailable to him. Id. at 1047. Therefore, because “no district court is required to

entertain a habeas petition inquiring into the detention of a person [. . .] if it appears that

‘the legality of such detention has been determined [. . .] on a prior application for a writ

of habeas corpus,’” the Petitioner’s objection is OVERRULED.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge Trumble’s Report

and Recommendation [ECF No. 27] should be, and is hereby, ORDERED ADOPTED.

For the reasons more fully stated in the R&R, itis ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition

for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 8] be DENIED AND

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Claim One and WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to

Claims Two and Three.

This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. The Clerk of

Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Petitioner by certified mail,

return receipt requested, to his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.

DATED: December 21, 2023

Lgl 1A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE