Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vieux v. Williamson

June 20, 2007

RICHARD VIEUX, PETITIONER,
v.
WARDEN TROY WILLIAMSON, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones

Magistrate Judge Blewitt

MEMORANDUM

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS

Pending before this Court is a Report (doc. 3), issued by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt ("the Magistrate Judge" or "Magistrate Judge Blewitt") on April 16, 2007, which recommends that Petitioner Richard Vieux's ("Petitioner" or "Vieux") Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1), filed on April 5, 2007, be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons to follow, we will adopt the learned Magistrate Judge's Report in its entirety and dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 5, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant habeas action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, naming as Respondent Troy Williamson ("Respondent" or "Williamson").*fn1 On April 16, 2007, Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report (doc. 3) recommending that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without directing service of it on Respondent. On May 2, 2007, Petitioner filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Blewitt's Report, along with his supporting brief. (Rec. Doc. 4). Thus, this matter is ripe for disposition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objections are filed to a report of a magistrate judge, we make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge to which there are objections. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.3l. Furthermore, district judges have wide discretion as to how they treat recommendations of a magistrate judge. See id. Indeed, in providing for a de novo review determination rather than a de novo hearing, Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound discretion, chooses to place on a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. See id., see also Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In his Report and Recommendation ("Report"), Magistrate Judge Blewitt summarizes the relevant factual background of the instant action based on his reading of the parties' submissions. (Rec. Doc. 3). Although we agree with the Magistrate Judge's factual summary, taken in large part from Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in support of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2), we review briefly the most pertinent portions thereof.*fn2

As Petitioner notes, he was convicted on December 14, 1995, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, of the following offenses: conspiracy to commit carjacking, to use and carry a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, to obstruct commerce by robbery, to transport stolen goods in interstate commerce, and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, (Count One); carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury, (Count Two); use of firearm during a crime of violence, (Count Three); possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, (Count Five, Ten and Twelve); carjacking resulting in death, (Count Six); obstruction of commerce by robbery, (Count Eight); use of a firearm during a crime of violence, (Count Nine); and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, (Count Eleven). (Rec. Doc. 2 at 3).

Petitioner states these offenses were in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 2119, 922(g)(1), and 371. (Rec. Doc. 1 at 3). He also indicates that he was convicted of the above stated violations, and that at trial, the Government dismissed Count Eight (8). (Id. at 3). On March 8, 1996, Petitioner was sentenced on the stated offenses to life imprisonment plus forty-five (45) years. (Id.).

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and on April 7, 1998, Petitioner's appeal was denied and his conviction was affirmed. (Id. at 3).

On March 5, 1999, Petitioner filed his first motion with the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("§ 2255"), which raised various issues, but did not directly challenge, his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.