United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
DANIEL H. KING, Petitioner,
T. SMITH, Respondent.
C. DEVER, III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT
2, 2017, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 4] and recommended
that the court dismiss Daniel H. King's
("King") 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without
prejudice. On May 26, 2017, King objected to the M&R
Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a
de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate
judge's report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made." Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation
omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely
objection, "a district court need not conduct a de novo
review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation." Diamond, 416 F .3d at 315
those portions of the M&R to which King did not object,
the court has reviewed the M&R and the record. There is
no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the
court adopts the conclusions in the M&R to which King did
civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person under 18
U.S.C. § 4248, and his petition objects to the legality
of his commitment. King argues that Federal Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") lacked legal custody of him when the
commitment proceedings began. Cf. 18 U.S.C. §
4248(a) (noting that commitment proceedings may be initiated
only "[i]n relation to a person who is in the custody of
the Bureau of Prisons"). In his objections, King
contends: (1) "[t]he Magistrate err[ed] by confusing
parole and supervised release"; (2) he was not in BOP
custody when he was designated under 18 U.S.C. § 4248(a)
because he was scheduled to be released on parole; (3) the
Revitalization Act, which places D.C. Code Offenders in the
custody of the BOP, is not retroactive and does not apply to
him; and (4) the M&R's finding that King was in BOP
custody completely disregards "the D.C. Superior Court
codes and statutes." [D.E. 7] 1-5.
the government initiated commitment proceedings under 18
U.S.C. § 4248, King was "a District of Columbia
Code offender ("D.C. Code offender"). . . serving a
term of 12 to 36 years imprisonment in the Federal Bureau of
Prisons ("BOP") following his conviction for armed
kidnaping in the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia." King v. Ratledge, No.
5:15-HC-2183-FL, 2016 WL 7644864, at *1 (E.D. N.C. Apr. 14,
2016) (unpublished), affd, 669 Fed.Appx. 99 (4th Cir. 2016)
(per curiam) (unpublished). In rejecting King's argument
that he was not in BOP custody, the M&R cited United
States v. Savage, 737 F.3d 304, 309 (4th Cir. 2013),
which held "that D.C. offenders are in the legal custody
of the BOP for purposes of § 4248." See M&R at
5. The M&R also mentioned United States v.
Broncheau, 645 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2011), where the
Fourth Circuit discussed section 4248 and individuals whose
sentences include terms of supervised release. The M&R
did not confuse parole and supervised release, and King was
in the BOP's legal custody when his commitment
proceedings began. See Savage, 737 F.3d at 309;
King, 2016 WL 7644864, at *2.
King's contention that the Revitalization Act does not
apply to him and that he was not in the legal custody of the
BOP under 18 U.S.C. § 4248 when commitment proceedings
began, King made this argument to Judge Flanagan in a motion
to vacate his civil commitment. See United States v.
King, 5:10-HC-2009-FL [D.E. 141] 2-9. Judge Flanagan
denied the motion and cited United States v. Savage,
737 F.3d 304, 309 (4th Cir. 2013). See United States v.
King, 5:10-HC-2009-FL [D.E. 149]. King appealed, and the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment. See United States
v. King, 692 Fed.Appx. 742 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam)
(unpublished). Thus, the court rejects King's argument
that the Revitalization Act does not apply to him and his
argument that he was not in the legal custody of the BOP when
the United States began commitment proceedings under 18
U.S.C. § 4248. See id.; Savage, 737
F.3d at 309; United States v. Johnson, No.
5:09-HC-2045-BO, 2011 WL 2118108, at *3-4 (E.D. N.C. May 27,
2011) (unpublished); M&R at 6-7.
King's objections [D.E. 7] are OVERRULED, and the court
adopts the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 4]. King's
"petition is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the court
DENIES a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c); Miller-El v. Cockrell,537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003); S ...