McCright v. Wilson, No. 3:2017cv00443 - Document 11 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION for details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 06/18/2018. Copy mailed to Petitioner.(ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McCright v. Wilson Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division L E p p jy^ 1 9 2018 P JASON L. McCRIGHT, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURI RICHMOND, VA Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:17CV443 ERIC WILSON, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jason L. McCright, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (hereinafter "§ 2241 Petition," ECF No. 1.) McCright contends that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")"has denied me jail credit from [the] time I was sentenced 3/2009 to June 6"* 2012, the sentence was concurrent to any other sentence." (§ 2241 Pet. 7 (capitalization corrected).)' The matter is now before the Court on Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment(ECF No. 8). Because, as explained below, McCright's federal sentence was not ordered to run concurrent to the state sentence he had been serving and the BOP has properly calculated his sentence, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED. I. Standard for Summary Judgment Summary judgment must be rendered "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). It is the responsibility of the party seeking summary judgment to inform the Court of the basis for the motion, and to identify the parts of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catretl, 477 U.S. 317, 323 ' Although McCright listed multiple claims in his § 2241 Petition, the claims largely overlap. The Court analyzes all aspects of McCright's demands for relief in the Memorandum Opinion and concludes they are without merit. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
