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.

Bolt v. United States Parole Commission

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

April 21, 2015

RODNELL BOLT, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

ORDER

EDWIN M. KOSIK, District Judge.

AND NOW, THIS 21st DAY OF APRIL, 2015, IT APPEARING TO THE COURT THAT:

(1) Petitioner, Rodnell Bolt, a prisoner confined at FCI - Allenwood, White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on December 22, 2014;

(2) In his petition, petitioner challenges the conduct of the United States Parole Commission in failing to follow its own regulations in conducting petitioner's proceedings;

(3) The action was assigned to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson for Report and Recommendation;

(4) On March 31, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9), wherein he recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied;

(5) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that the Parole Commission followed the procedures described in 28 C.F.R. §2.23 and §2.24. Because the Magistrate Judge found that the Parole Commission adhered to the pertinent regulations, the Magistrate Judge found that the Petitioner had no basis for challenging the parole decision;

(6) Petitioner has failed to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

AND, IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:

(7) If no objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the plaintiff is not statutorily entitled to a de novo review of his claims. 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985). Nonetheless, the usual practice of the district court is to give "reasoned consideration" to a magistrate judge's report prior to adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson , 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987).

(8) We have considered the Magistrate Judge's Report and we concur with his recommendation.

(9) After reviewing the record, we agree with the Magistrate Judge's thorough analysis that the Parole Commission's decision was reached using the proper regulations.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson dated March 31, ...


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.