Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JUSTICE HATEN, )
) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 25-1559 )
v. ) District Judge W. Scott Hardy
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL and )
TREVOR WINGARD, )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) entered by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on October 15, 2025. (Docket No. 2). Petitioner Justice Haten, a federal pretrial detainee housed at the Allegheny County Jail, initiated this action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his arrest, pretrial confinement, and current federal charges alleged in the Indictment against him at Criminal No. 25- 128 as violating his rights under the Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Docket No. 1 at 2-3). As relief, Petitioner seeks dismissal of the federal charges, release from detention, and money damages. ( Id. at 4). The R&R correctly explains that Petitioner’s attack on his federal pretrial detention is not properly made via a habeas petition under § 2241, but rather must be made pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. ; Petitioner’s attack on the validity of the charges against him must be addressed in an appropriate pretrial motion in his criminal case; and money damages are not available in a federal habeas case. (Docket No. 2 at 2-3). Given that the instant Petition is not cognizable under § 2241, *2 the R&R recommends that it be dismissed, sua sponte , pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which applies as explained in the R&R. ( Id. at 2).
Service of the R&R was made on Petitioner by mail, and any objections were due by November 3, 2025. Thereafter, Petitioner did not file any objections to the R&R.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, and a district judge must conduct a de novo review of any part of the R&R that has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), (b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Given that Petitioner did not file any objections to the R&R, which explicitly states that “[f]ailure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal,” (Docket No. 2 at 3), this Court reviews the magistrate judge’s decision for plain error. See Tice v. Wilson , 425 F. Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
In this case, upon careful review of the R&R and the Petition, and finding no plain error on the face of the record, the Court will accept Judge Kelly’s recommendation that the Petition be dismissed, sua sponte , because the relief sought therein is not cognizable in a federal habeas petition. As such, the Court will adopt the R&R as the Opinion of the Court as set forth below. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the Court enters the following Order: AND NOW, this 17 th day of November, 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R, (Docket No. 2), is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. *3 § 2241, (Docket No. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice to him bringing an appropriate motion or motions for relief in his criminal case if he wishes to do so.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED. s/ W. Scott Hardy W. Scott Hardy United States District Judge cc/ecf: Justice Haten (via U.S. Mail)
Inmate No. 198064
Allegheny County Jail
950 Second Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219