Wilson v. Fikes

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Javece Wilson, Civ. No. 21-367 (PAM/HB)

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

Warden J. Fikes, FBOP; and DOJ,

Respondents.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer dated May 18, 2021. (Docket No. 24.) The R&R recommends denying Petitioner Javece Wilson’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Amend. (Docket Nos. 8, 13.) For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R. According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Wilson filed objections to the R&R. (Docket Nos. 26, 27.) However, Wilson does not challenge any specific ruling in the R&R; instead, he merely reraises arguments made before the Magistrate Judge. Liberally construing Wilson’s objections, he fails to provide any factual or legal basis on which to overturn the R&R’s sound reasoning. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Thus, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. The full background is set forth in the R&R and the Court need not revisit it here. As the R&R thoroughly analyzed, there was no due-process violation related to Wilson’s

disciplinary hearing at FCI Sandstone. Moreover, the conclusion the disciplinary-hearing officer reached at that hearing was supported by sufficient evidence. The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Docket No. 24);

2. Petitioner Javece Wilson’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 8) is DENIED; 3. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Docket No. 13) is DENIED; and 4. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: Wednesday, June 23, 2021

s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge