GINA M. GROH, Chief District Judge.
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation (AR&R') of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 32. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R on August 21, 2019. In the R&R, he recommends that the Petitioner's § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed with prejudice.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed.
Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen plus three days of the Petitioner being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed to the Petitioner by certified mail on August 21, 2019. ECF No. 32. The Petitioner accepted service on August 26, 2019. ECF No. 33. On September 10, 2019, the Court granted the Petitioner an extension of time to file objections. ECF No. 35. The Petitioner filed objections on October 17, 2019. ECF No. 41. Accordingly, the Court will review the portions of the R&R to which the Petitioner objects de novo.
On January 14, 2019, the pro se Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging "[t]he computation and credit of [his] jail time." ECF No. 1 at 1. In his petition, the Petitioner asserts that he has been denied credit for time served prior to his sentence.
Upon reviewing the record, the Court finds that the facts as explained in the R&R accurately and succinctly describe the circumstances underlying the Petitioner's claims. For ease of review, the Court incorporates those facts herein; however, it will briefly outline the most relevant facts of this case.
On October 20, 2001, the Petitioner was arrested on state charges of possession of a controlled substance and aggravated use of a weapon. On January 28, 2003, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment following his entry of a guilty plea. The Petitioner completed his term of imprisonment for his state sentence on April 13, 2004. On June 27, 2003, while serving his state sentence, the Petitioner appeared before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. On April 13, 2004, the Petitioner entered a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute and three counts of distribution of a controlled substance. On January 28, 2005, the Petitioner was sentenced to 360 months imprisonment. The Petitioner has received 289 days of credit for time served for the period of April 14, 2004 through January 27, 2005.
The Attorney General, acting through the Bureau of Prisons, has responsibility for calculating a defendant's jail credit.
18 U.S.C. § 3585 (emphasis added).
In this case, Magistrate Judge Trumble found that the Petitioner has received all credit to which he is entitled, and his request for relief is without merit. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Trumble found that the Petitioner was not entitled to credit from June 27, 2003 through April 13, 2004 because "he was not entitled to credit toward his federal sentence from his date of sentencing until he was released from state custody." ECF No. 32 at 12. Magistrate Judge Trumble further found "[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), this Court is not required to consider the instant habeas petition filed by Petitioner, because he is challenging his federal custody on the same ground that he advanced in [the District Court for the Central District of Illinois, case numbers 1:11-CV-1050 and 1:12-CV-1109] and lost after a full and fair litigation of his claim."
In the Petitioner's first objection, he argues that "federal courts have recognized that an inmate may receive a nunc pro tunc designation of a state prison as the place of confinement for a federal sentence, as is within the Bureau of Prisons statutory authority which is authorized pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)." ECF No. 41 at 3. The Petitioner further argues that "[t]he R&R does not take this point under consideration."
In the Petitioner's second objection, he argues that he "has never raised relief under 18 U.S.C.A Section 3621(b) nor did a district court deny relief thereof." ECF No. 41 at 5. A review of case numbers 1:11-CV-1050 and 1:12-CV-1109 in the District Court for the Central District of Illinois clearly show the Defendant is seeking the same relief under the same grounds he sought in both of those cases. The only discrepancy is that the Petitioner now seeks credit for time served from June 27, 2003, the date he was taken into federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, through April 13, 2004, the date he completed his state sentence, rather than October 20, 2001, the date of his arrest on state charges, through April 14, 2004. The fact that the Petitioner may have realized that he is not entitled to credit for time served from October 20, 2001 through June 26, 2003 does not change the fact that he is challenging his federal custody on the same ground that he advanced in his prior cases. Accordingly, the Petitioner's objection is without merit and is
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's objections are
The Clerk is