Kenneth Mobley v. FBOP-McDowell

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00206
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD

KENNETH MOBLEY,

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-00206

FBOP-MCDOWELL,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph K. Reeder for submission of proposed findings and recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Reeder submitted his proposed findings and recommendation on May 21, 2025. In that Proposed Findings and Recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended that this court deny petitioner’s motions for a preliminary injunction and restraining order. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Reeder’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure of any party to file such objections constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Moreover, this court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Petitioner filed objections to the Proposed Findings and

Recommendation on July 23, 2025. Those objections were not timely. In those objections, petitioner makes numerous excuses for his failure to timely file objections, most of which involve his conditions of confinement. For this reason, the court will consider the objections to be timely filed. However, they are without merit. In his petition, Mobley argues that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is failing to correctly apply his time credits pursuant to the First Step Act (“FSA”) and that he is eligible for a RRC placement. In addition to his petition, Mobley filed motions for Temporary Restraining Order(s) and a Preliminary Injunction. See ECF Nos. 13 and 14. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended that those motions be denied because

Mobley could not satisfy his heavy burden of showing that he was entitled to injunctive relief. Mobley’s objections do not point to any specific error in the PF&R regarding its conclusion that Mobley is not entitled to injunctive relief. The majority of Mobley’s objections to the PF&R are directed to his conditions of confinement which,

2 according to Mobley, violate his constitutional rights. Magistrate Judge Reeder directed Mobley that any such claims needed to be pursued in a Bivens action and gave him instructions for filing a Bivens complaint. See ECF No. 23. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Reeder, the court hereby OVERRULES petitioner’s objections. The court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the PF&R. Accordingly, the court DENIES petitioner’s motions for a preliminary injunction and restraining order (ECF Nos. 13 and 14) and refers the matter back to Magistrate Judge Reeder for further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. It is SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2025. BNTER: Raut O Dabo David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge

—3-