Kenney v. Entzel
1:19-cv-00019
N.D.W. Va.Feb 19, 2020Background
- Petitioner Walando Kenney, a federal inmate at FCI Hazelton, filed a pro se § 2241 petition challenging the BOP’s sentence calculation, contending he is entitled to credit for pretrial detention during which he alleged federal primary custody.
- The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for initial screening and a report and recommendation (R&R).
- Respondent (Warden Frederick Entzel) moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; Kenney received a Roseboro notice informing him of his right to respond.
- The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R on January 21, 2020, recommending grant of respondent’s motion and dismissal of the petition with prejudice.
- The R&R was mailed and accepted by Kenney; no objections were filed within the 14-day objection period.
- The District Court reviewed the R&R for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, granted respondent’s motion, dismissed the § 2241 petition with prejudice, and directed entry of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kenney is entitled to credit for pretrial detention as time in federal primary custody for sentence calculation | Kenney contends his pretrial detention was under federal control and thus should be credited toward his sentence | BOP/respondent contends the detention did not qualify as federal primary custody and/or BOP’s calculation was correct | Court adopted the R&R granting dismissal — Kenney’s claim denied (petition dismissed) |
| Whether Kenney may obtain relief via § 2241 | Kenney asserted § 2241 is the proper vehicle to challenge BOP’s calculation | Respondent argued dismissal or summary judgment was appropriate because the claim lacked merit or was improperly pleaded | Court adopted R&R finding § 2241 relief improper on the merits and granted respondent’s motion |
| Effect of failing to object to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R | Kenney did not file timely objections | Respondent relied on lack of objection to support adoption of R&R without de novo review | Court declined de novo review, reviewed for clear error, found none, and adopted the R&R in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198 (4th Cir. 1997) (failure to timely object to an R&R may waive appellate review)
- Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989) (same; consequences of failing to object to magistrate recommendations)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (district courts may adopt unobjected-to magistrate recommendations without explanation)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (court will uphold unobjected-to portions of an R&R unless clearly erroneous)
- Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (discussing adoption of magistrate recommendations where no objections are filed)