Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sosa v. Stewart

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 6, 2014

PEDRO AUGUSTO SOSA, XXXXX-XXX, Petitioner,
v.
TIMOTHY S. STEWART, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 24, 2013, Pedro Augusto Sosa ("Sosa"), who is confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland, filed this 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Habeas Corpus relief in which he contends that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has refused to calculate his federal sentence to include the seven-month period from July 20, 2011 to February 28, 2012, for time spent in state custody after he had been remanded into the custody of the U.S. Marshal and sentenced by a state court judge.

II. PENDING MOTIONS

Currently pending before the court is Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, construed as a motion for summary judgment, Sosa's Opposition, Respondent's Reply, and Sosa's Surreply. (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 22, & 23). For reasons that follow, Respondent's Motion shall be granted and the Petition shall be denied and dismissed.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

1. Motion to Dismiss

"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to prove the >grounds' of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). A[S]omething beyond the mere possibility of loss causation must be alleged, lest a plaintiff with a >largely groundless claim' be allowed to take up the time of a number of other people...'" Id. at 1966 (quoting Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005)). In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must Aaccept the well-pled allegations of the complaint as true" and Aconstrue the facts and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997). However, Abecause the court is testing the legal sufficiency of the claims, the court is not bound by plaintiff's legal conclusions." IFAST, Ltd. v. Alliance Solution Telecommunications Industry, 2007 WL 3224582, *3 (D. Md. 2007). Azimirad v. HSBC Mortg. Corp., No. DKC-10-2853, 2011 WL 1375970, at *2-3 (D. Md. Apr. 12, 2011). If the Court, however, considers matters outside the pleadings, as the Court does here, the Court must treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d); Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Highland Consulting Grp., Inc., 916 F.Supp.2d 620, 622-23 (D. Md. 2013).

2. Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary Judgment is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), which provides, in part:

The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Supreme Court has clarified that this does not mean that any factual dispute will defeat the motion:

By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). In resolving the motion, the court should "view the evidence in the light most favorable to... the nonmovant, and draw all inferences in her favor without weighing the evidence or assessing the witness' credibility." Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002). However, "[t]he party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings, ' but rather must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 525 (4th Cir.2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). Moreover, the court must abide by the "affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.