United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION , DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR
EVIDENTIARY HEARING , AND DISMISSING PETITIONER'S
CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE
SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation  of United States Magistrate Judge John C.
Gargiulo, entered on December 1, 2016. Also before the Court
is Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing .
After consideration of the proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law set forth in the Report and
Recommendation, the record in this case, and relevant legal
authority, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation
should be adopted as the findings of this Court,
Petitioner's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing should be
denied, and Petitioner's Habeas Petition should be
dismissed with prejudice.
March 17, 2016, Petitioner filed his Habeas Petition seeking
the “return of good time 41 days and the removal of
this Incident from my record, ” Petition  at 8,
because of “the lack of proof of my escape, ”
id. at 2. Respondent's Response in Opposition
 was filed on July 18, 2016, asserting that the
disciplinary hearing officer's determination that the
good time credit should be disallowed was supported by some
evidence because Petitioner “escaped” while in
transit from the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI)
Miami, Florida, to the FCC Yazoo City, Mississippi, when he
departed the Greyhound bus station in Mobile, Alabama, Resp.
in Opp'n  at 2-8, and was unaccounted for until the
next day when he arrived at FCC Yazoo City in a taxi,
id. at 2-3; Pet.  at 10.
Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner's Petition should
be dismissed because the “disciplinary hearing
comported with the requirements of due process and the
disciplinary hearing officer's decision was supported by
sufficient evidence.” R. & R.  at 9. A copy of
the Report and Recommendation was mailed to Petitioner at his
last known address by certified mail, return receipt
requested. On December 6, 2016, the Clerk docketed the
Acknowledgment of Receipt  indicating that Petitioner
received the Report and Recommendation on December 5, 2016.
To date, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has
been filed by Petitioner.
no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“a
judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is
made.”). In such cases, the Court need only review the
Report and Recommendation and determine whether it is either
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
conducted the required review, the Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation thoroughly
considered all issues, and is neither clearly erroneous, nor
contrary to law. It is clear from the record that
Petitioner's “disciplinary hearing comported with
the requirements of due process and the disciplinary hearing
officer's decision was supported by sufficient
evidence.” R. & R.  at 9. Even if this Court
were to conduct a de novo review, based upon the
pleadings and the record as a whole, the Court finds
Petitioner's claims should be denied for the same reasons
set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
Court further finds that all information relevant to
Petitioner's claim was contained in the record and the
pleadings, thus Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing  should also be denied.
Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that the
Magistrate Judge properly recommended that Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 be denied. Said Report and Recommendation
should be adopted as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation , entered in this
case on December 1, 2016, is adopted as the finding of this
FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Douglas Wade
Braithwaite's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing  is
FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner Douglas Wade
Braithwaite's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 
filed March 17, 2016, is DENIED. A separate judgment will be
entered in accordance with this Order, as required by Rule 58
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
 On December 23, 3016, the envelope
 containing the Report and Recommendation was returned to
the Clerk's Office with the notation “RETURN TO
SENDER, NOT ABLE TO DELIVER AS ...