Larone Elijah v. Richard Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454

Elijah was convicted in 2007 of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and sentenced as a Class B felon to 108 months; Congress later reclassified that offense as Class C under the Fair Sentencing Act.
In 2015 the district court revoked Elijah’s supervised release and imposed a 36‑month revocation sentence; Elijah’s appeal of that revocation sentence was dismissed as untimely.
In 2017 Elijah pleaded guilty to a new possession offense and received 108 months consecutive to the revocation sentence.
The First Step Act (2018) increased annual good conduct time (GCT); the BOP applied the increased GCT to Elijah’s revocation and 2017 sentences but not retroactively to his 2007 sentence. BOP denied Elijah’s administrative request to apply the Act to the 2007 sentence.
Elijah filed a § 2241 habeas petition raising (1) that supervised release was “official detention” to be credited, (2) that the First Step Act should be applied retroactively to his original sentence, and (3) that Haymond invalidated 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
A magistrate judge recommended dismissal; Elijah filed detailed objections. The district court reviewed the R&R for clear error (not de novo), adopted it, and dismissed Elijah’s petition. On appeal the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, instructing the district court to undertake de novo review; the panel declined to reach the habeas merits and refused to recall the prior mandate dismissing Elijah’s 2015 appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by failing to review the magistrate judge’s R&R de novo	Elijah argued his written objections were specific and required de novo review	The Warden (and district court) treated the objections as mere reargument and reviewed only for clear error	Court: district court erred; objections were sufficiently specific; vacated and remanded for de novo review
Whether the BOP must retroactively apply the First Step Act to Elijah’s 2007 sentence	Elijah argued the Act’s expanded GCT should be credited to his original sentence, reducing his term	Warden implicitly argued BOP’s nonretroactive application as to the 2007 sentence was proper	Court: did not reach the merits on appeal; remanded for district court de novo consideration
Whether time on supervised release counts as "official detention" creditable to current sentence	Elijah maintained supervised release was "official detention" and should be credited	Warden opposed crediting supervised release as confinement time	Court: did not decide; issue left for district court on remand
Whether to recall the court’s prior mandate dismissing Elijah’s 2015 appeal	Elijah asked the Court to recall its 2016 mandate and reopen appeal for merits review	Warden opposed; Court noted recalling mandates is extraordinary and limited	Court: refused to recall the prior mandate; previous dismissal stands

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (magistrate recommendations are proposals; district judge must make ultimate decision)
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (constitutional limits on magistrate authority require district‑court review of recommendations)
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616 (4th Cir. 2007) (objections must reasonably alert the district court to the true grounds for objection)
Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2017) (pro se objections that restate claims can be sufficiently specific to trigger de novo review)
De Leon‑Ramirez v. United States, 925 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2019) (district court responsibility over magistrate reports; appellate prudence not to reach unreviewed merits)
United States v. Ward, 770 F.3d 1090 (4th Cir. 2014) (addressing GCT calculation in context of sentence computation)
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (if parties do not object, district court may forgo de novo review and apply clear‑error review)