The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge McClure
On February 21, 2006, pro se petitioner Jesse Adams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was initially referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser.
On July 7, 2006, Magistrate Judge Smyser issued an eight-page report and recommendation. (Rec. Doc. No. 19.) On July 25, 2006, the court received what we construe as petitioner's objections to the report and recommendation.
For the following reasons, we will adopt the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, dismiss the petition, deny petitioner's motion for summary judgment, and direct the clerk to close the case file.
As the magistrate judge ably recited the facts of the case, we find it unnecessary to repeat the details of that discussion here. Petitioner is currently serving a 21-month sentence imposed by the United States Parole Commission ("USPC") for violating the conditions of parole. Petitioner is also serving two 22-month sentences imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, one for unauthorized use of a vehicle, and one for first degree theft. The two 22-month sentences imposed by the Superior Court were ordered to run concurrently as to each other, but consecutively to any other sentence. Therefore, the BOP has calculated petitioner's aggregate term of imprisonment to be 43 months.
As the magistrate judge noted, the petition in this case is difficult to interpret. The gravamen of petitioner's claim is that the BOP has improperly failed to credit his sentence with time spent in custody on an unrelated charge in Prince George's County, Maryland. Ultimately, the petition has been construed as raising five claims:
1. The BOP failed to give petitioner credit toward his sentence for the time spent in custody in Prince George's County;
2. USPC regulations require that petitioner be granted credit for the time he has served on his new sentence (the sentence imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia);
3. The USPC denied petitioner due process by incorrectly calculating his salient factor score;
4. The USPC denied petitioner due process and violated its own regulations by failing to hold a timely probable cause hearing after petitioner's arrest;
5. The USPC violated petitioner's due process rights by revoking his supervised release before the disposition of his new criminal charges in the ...