Ronald James Davenport, Duluth, Minnesota 55814, pro se Petitioner.
D. Gerald Wilhelm and Gregory G. Brooker, United States Attorney's Office, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for consideration of Petitioner's Objections [Doc. No. 25] to United States Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan's August 16, 2013, Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 15]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Mr. Davenport's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] and his First Amended Petition [Doc. No. 4] be dismissed with prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Mr. Davenport's objections and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
The R&R documents the factual and procedural background of this case, and the Court incorporates it here by reference. Briefly stated, Mr. Davenport is confined at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota, pursuant to a conviction and sentencing in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington for filing false liens in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1521 (counts 1-4). (J. in a Criminal Case [Doc. No. 7-1 at 13].) Mr. Davenport was sentenced to a 41-month imprisonment term on each count, followed by three years of supervised release, with sentences to be served concurrently. (Id. at 14.) Mr. Davenport's sentence was computed from a commencement date of March 26, 2012, and he received credit for the time from his arrest on July 14, 2010, to his release to home confinement on August 16, 2010. (Public Information Inmate Data [Doc. No. 7-1 at 22].) Mr. Davenport was released to the supervision of Ms. Connie Larue and subject to electronic monitoring by the United States Probation Office. (Order Setting Conditions of Release [Doc. No. 7-1 at 5-11].)
In this habeas corpus action, Mr. Davenport claims that he is entitled to further credit against his term of sentence for the time he spent in home confinement with electronic monitoring (approximately 19.5 months). The Magistrate Judge disagreed with Mr. Davenport and recommended that this Court dismiss Mr. Davenport's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and his First Amended Petition with prejudice. (Aug. 16, 2013, Report and Recommendation at 4-5 [Doc. No. 15].) On August 29, 2013, Mr. Davenport objected to the R&R. (Pet'r's Objection to Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 19].) On September 12, 2013, the Government responded to Mr. Davenport's objections. (Resp. of United States to Pet'r's Objection [Doc. No. 23].) On September 30, 2013, Mr. Davenport objected to the Government's response. (Pet'r's Objection to Resp't's Answer to Pet'r's Objection [Doc. No. 25].)
A. Standard of Review
A party "may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations." D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). The district court will review de novo those portions of the R&R to which an objection is made, and it "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Ordinarily, the district judge relies on the record of proceedings before the magistrate judge. D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).
Mr. Davenport essentially argues that the months he spent on pre-sentence home confinement should be considered "official detention, " because he was under the direct supervision of a federal officer. (Pet'r's Objection to Aug. 16, 2013, Report and Recommendation at 4 [Doc. No. 19].) Mr. Davenport objects to the Magistrate Judge's reliance on the United States Supreme Court's definition of "official detention" in Reno v. Koray , 515 U.S. 50, 56 (1995), and he claims that "official detention" instead means "detention by a ...