Alford v. Wingfield

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

ERIC ALFORD PETITIONER

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-35-DPJ-ASH

WARDEN WINGFIELD RESPONDENT

ORDER

Eric Alford, a federal inmate, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of jail-time credits. Pet. [1]. On July 8, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Harris entered a Report and Recommendation [12]. Judge Harris carefully considered Alford’s petition and recommended dismissal of the petition for failure to exhaust. R&R [12] at 5. Alford did not file an objection, and the time to do so has passed. See id. at 5–6 (informing Alford that he had 14 days to file an objection). “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983), quoted in Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) as noted in Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). Finding no clear error, the Court accepts the well-reasoned recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [12] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Harris is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court. The petition is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 28th day of July, 2025.

s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE