Goist v. Meeks, No. 9:2017cv00434 - Document 10 (D.S.C. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION adopting 8 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. The Court dismisses the habeas petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/31/2017.(ssam, )

Download PDF
Goist v. Meeks Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Paul Benjamin Goist, Petitioner, v. BJ. Meeks, Warden, FCI Williamsburg, Respondent. Case No 9:17-cv-434-RMG ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AND OPINION Petitioner, proceeding prose, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R. ") of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. (Dkt. No. 8.) For the reasons set forth below, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court and dismisses the habeas petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. I. Legal Standards a. Pro Se Pleadings This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. Weller v. Dep 't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an indigent litigant may commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against -1Dockets.Justia.com possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). b. Magistrate's Report and Recommendation The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de nova determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id. Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, "a district court need not conduct a de nova review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation," see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). II. Discussion Petitioner, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Williamsburg, filed this habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his career offender sentence enhancement. (Dkt. No. 1 at 4, 20.) The Magistrate Judge has adequately summarized the facts relevant to this Petition, so this Court need not repeat them here. (Dkt. No. 8 at 2-6.) The Magistrate has explained that this action is subject to summary dismissal because Petitioner was convicted in federal court and his petition does not satisfy the § 2255 savings clause. For these reasons, -2- Petitioner must seek habeas relief from his convictions and sentence through § 2255, not through a Petition filed under§ 2241. (Dkt. No. 8 at 3-5.) Petitioner has not filed any objections to the R. & R. This Court finds that the Magistrate has correctly applied the controlling law to the facts of this case. III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court and dismisses the habeas petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. fiMXel United States District Court Judge May .l f , 201 7 Charleston, South Carolina -3-

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.