United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
JOHN A. GIBNEY, Jr., District Judge.
Edward Roberts, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("§ 2241 Petition, " ECF No. 1) challenging the method used by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to award good conduct time credit toward his District of Columbia sentence and arguing that he is entitled to more good conduct credit than the BOP has awarded him. On May 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be granted and the § 2241 Petition be dismissed because Roberts has received all credit he is due. The Court advised Roberts that he could file objections within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Report and Recommendation. Roberts has not responded.
"The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court." Estrada v. Witkowski, 816 F.Supp. 408, 410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues-factual and legal-that are at the heart of the parties' dispute." Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). In the absence of a specific written objection, this Court may adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation without conducting a de novo review. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).
There being no objections, the Report and Recommendation will be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) will be GRANTED. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) will be DENIED AS ...