# Brown v. Warden

> District Court, S.D. West Virginia · November 21, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10728688

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. West Virginia
- **Decided:** November 21, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10728688

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD

JENNIFER IRENE BROWN,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-01407

WARDEN, FPC ALDERSON,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of
findings and recommendation regarding disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn submitted to
the court his Findings and Recommendation on September 17, 2019,
in which he recommended that the court deny Petitioner’s
Application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by
a Person in State or Federal Custody (ECF Nos. 1 and 2) and
remove this case from the court’s active docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
petitioner was allotted fourteen days and three mailing days in
which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s
Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file
such objections within the time allowed constitutes a waiver of
such party’s right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v.
Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
Objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation were

due by October 15, 2019. Neither party filed any objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation within the
requisite time period or the extended time period.
The court would like to further substantiate the Magistrate
Judge’s findings in one respect. Petitioner’s second claim –
which was not addressed by the Respondent in its Response, see
ECF No. 6 – was that the BOP policy resulting in petitioner’s
ineligibility for sentence reduction and early release was
unconstitutionally void for vagueness per Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s
PF&R cites a plethora of case law from other district courts
holding that BOP regulations and policies are not subject to

void-for-vagueness Johnson challenges. See ECF No. 8, at 14-15.
Since the PF&R was filed in this case, the Fourth Circuit has
issued a ruling on this exact issue, holding that an inmate
cannot challenge a BOP Program Statement or other BOP internal
guidance as being void for vagueness. Wilborn v. Mansukhani,
2019 WL 5856427, at *6 (4th Cir. Nov. 8, 2019). Therefore, the
findings and recommendation of the PF&R are further
substantiated.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Findings and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn as follows:
1. Petitioner’s Application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for
Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal
Custody is DENIED;
2. This action is DISMISSED; and
3. The Clerk is directed to remove this case from the
court’s active docket.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and
unrepresented parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2019.
BNTER:
Raut O Dabo
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10728688. Public record. Not legal advice.