Brennerman v. Thompson

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RAHEEM BRENNERMAN, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-1518 Petitioner, : (JUDGE MARIANI) : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) V. FILED . SCRANTON RACHEL THOMPSON, WARDEN, MAR 25 2009 Respondent. MSPUTY □□□□□ U, _ ORDER AND NOW, THIS oe hy OF MARCH 2022, upon review of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s March 14, 2022, Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 22) for clear error or manifest injustice, Petitioner's responsive correspondence of March 18, 2022 (Doc. 23), and all relevant documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 22) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein. 2. Petitioner's claimed exhaustion of administrative remedies set out in his March 18, 2022, correspondence (Doc. 23 at 1) has no bearing on Magistrate Judge Carlson's recommended disposition in that exhaustion is a prerequisite to habeas relief and, therefore, petitioners must “exhaust their administrative remedies before petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus.” Moscato v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996) (citing Bradshaw v. Carlson, 682 F.2d 1050, 1052 (3d Cir. 1981) (per curiam)) (emphasis added). Therefore, to the extent Petitioner’s correspondence informing the Court that he has now exhausted his administrative remedies is

considered an objection to the R&R’s recommended disposition, the objection is OVERRULED; 3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

“7 Qred/Mhies Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge