ANDERSON

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) and Petitioner's objections (Doc. 12). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objections de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that Petitioner's §2241 habeas petition should be dismissed because the issues raised in the petition (and reiterated in the objections) can only be raised on direct appeal; in a §2255 motion; or, if allowed by the Eleventh Circuit, in an appeal of the denial of the §2255 motion.

The Court did not overlook Petitioner's argument that the magistrate judge did not "engage with" the claims that she raised in the petition. However, the magistrate judge and the Court have no authority to consider or otherwise “engage

with" the merits of claims like those in the petition that are procedurally barred and do not fall within the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. §2255(e).

The Court also did not overlook Petitioner's argument that §2241 exists precisely for her situation because §2255 and the other potential avenues for relief are inadequate and/or ineffective because they "exist[] only in theory, but not in substance." However, that argument conflates “remedy” with "relief” because, as the magistrate judge explained, the fact that Petitioner has not obtained the “relief" that she believes she is entitled to does not mean that there was not an adequate or effective "remedy" available for her to pursue that relief. See Doc. 4 at 4 (citing McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F. 3d 1076, 1081 (11th Cir. 2017)). Moreover, the fact that Petitioner asserts that she has been denied relief in "four different jurisdictions" under "every legal process available" might be an indication that her claims lack merit or, at least, should give her pause about continuing to assert those claims.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases because Defendant is not entitled to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §§2241 and/or 2255(e).

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2025.

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE