Herndon Hunt Outlaw Riddle v. Warden, FCC Petersburg Low

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division HERNDON HUNT OUTLAW RIDDLE, #66623-056, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2:25-cv-366 WARDEN, FCC PETERSBURG LOW, Respondent.

ORDER Petitioner Herndon Hunt Outlaw Riddle seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking an order requiring his immediate release to a Residential Reentry Center or home confinement as a result of credits earned towards early release under the First Step Act. ECF No. 1. The Warden moved to dismiss the petition, and the petitioner filed a response. ECF Nos. 7 (motion), 8 (memorandum), 11 (response).

Before the Court is an unopposed report and recommendation, in which the Honorable Douglas E. Miller, United States Magistrate Judge, concluded that the motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice as the petition fails to plausibly allege grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for this court to order his earlier transfer. ECF No. 15.

Judge Miller advised the parties of their rights to object to his findings and recommendations and explained that failure to timely object would result in a waiver of appeal from a judgment of this Court based on such findings and recommendations.

ECF No. 15 at 14-15 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Carr v. Hutto, 737 F.2d 433 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Schronce, 727 F. 2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984)). The time to file an objection has expired, and neither party objected to the report and recommendation. !

In the absence of a specific written objection, this Court may adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendations without conducting a de novo review, unless the recommendations are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).

The Court has reviewed Judge Miller’s findings and recommendations and found no clear error. Accordingly, the report and recommendation (ECF No. 15) is ADOPTED.

The respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1 Although the Court did not receive any objections to the report and recommendation, the petitioner did file an “Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings and for Protective Order Due to Involuntary Interstate Transfer by the Bureau of Prisons During the Pendency of § 2255 proceedings and Supplemental notice of Material Custodial Developments Affecting Access to the Court” (ECF No. 16), as well as an “Amended Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing, or in the Alternative Emergency Transfer of Venue” (ECF No. 17).

And the respondent filed an opposition. ECF No. 19. But the filings do not object to or address the report and recommendation. See generally ECF Nos. 16, 17, 19.

In light of the disposition contained in this Order, the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT both emergency motions (ECF Nos. 16, 17).

If the petitioner intends to appeal this Order, he must by April 20, 2026 file a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. Frayer v. Warden, FCI Beckley, No. 23-6054, 2023 WL 3268719, at *1 (4th Cir. May 5, 2023) (“When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order.”).

The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the petitioner and provide an electronic copy to counsel of record for the respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Gu Jamar K. Walker United States District Judge Norfolk, Virginia February 19, 2026