Dominique D. Thomas v. Tim Carter

Thomas v. Carter · United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · March 6, 2026 · No. CIV-25-00321-JD

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and denied Dominique D. Thomas’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition and motion to proceed without delay. The court held that time credited toward Thomas’s state sentence could not also be credited toward his federal sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), and that Thomas waived review by failing to object to the Report and Recommendation.

Holdings

  1. A petitioner who receives adequate notice of the objection deadline and the consequences of failing to object, but files no timely objection, waives review of the magistrate judge's factual and legal conclusions under the Tenth Circuit's firm waiver rule.
  2. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), time credited against a state sentence cannot also be credited against a federal sentence.
  3. A federal sentencing court's recommendation that the BOP award time credit does not authorize credit prohibited by § 3585(b), and the sentencing court cannot itself apply § 3585(b) credit at sentencing.
  4. To the extent Thomas sought a sentencing adjustment or downward departure for time served on a discharged state sentence, that relief could not be obtained through § 2241 and instead had to be pursued before the sentencing court through a motion under § 2255.
  5. Thomas's motion to proceed without delay lacked merit and was denied.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Thomas waived appellate and district-court review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation by failing to file timely objections.
  2. Whether the Bureau of Prisons properly denied Thomas credit against his federal sentence for time already credited toward his Nebraska state sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
  3. Whether Thomas's motion to proceed without delay should be granted.
  4. Whether any intended downward departure or variance for time served could be pursued through a § 2241 petition rather than through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (9)

  • United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Smith v. Dorsey, No. 93-2229, 1994 WL 396069, at *3 (10th Cir. July 29, 1994) (unpublished)(followed)
  • Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1352 (10th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Morales-Fernandez v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116, 1119–20 (10th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Binford v. United States, 436 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333, 335, 337 (1992)(followed)
  • Fuimaona v. Hudson, 845 F. App’x 795, 796 (10th Cir. 2021) (unpublished)(followed)
  • Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 165–66 (10th Cir. 1996)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…