Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 6, 2024

Gadson v. Houston House

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:23-cv-08518
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Gadson v. Houston House, Judge Schofield dismissed Derrick Gadson’s habeas petition after adopting a recommendation that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

Who this affects

Derrick Gadson’s petition challenging the respondents’ application of First Step Act time credits was dismissed; the respondents prevailed on the exhaustion issue.

What happened

Derrick Gadson, representing himself, filed a petition challenging the respondents’ application of time credits under the First Step Act. He filed the case in the District of Rhode Island, and it was later transferred to the Southern District of New York.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition because Gadson had not first completed the required administrative process. Gadson did not timely object to that recommendation.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, and dismissed the petition. The order did not decide whether the time credits had been applied correctly.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gadson v. Houston House · No. 1:23-cv-08518
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Mar. 6, 2024

Background

Derrick Gadson filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the respondents’ application of time credits under the First Step Act. The opinion states that Gadson proceeded without a lawyer. He filed the petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on August 10, 2023. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York on September 27, 2023, and referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on October 11, 2023.

Report and Recommendation

On November 30, 2023, Judge Gorenstein issued a report and recommendation recommending that the petition be denied because Gadson had not exhausted administrative remedies, meaning he had not completed the required administrative process before seeking court relief. The deadline for objections was fourteen days after service of the report. No timely objections were filed.

Ruling

When no timely objection is filed, the district judge reviews the report for clear error on the face of the record. Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error, adopted Judge Gorenstein’s report, and ordered that the petition be dismissed. The order’s stated basis was failure to exhaust administrative remedies; it did not decide whether the respondents correctly applied Gadson’s time credits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.