The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
On March 3, 2005 Albert Jackson, an inmate at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the State of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Jackson challenges his 1990 Illinois state conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. (Docs. 1, 10.) On April 27, 2005, the State of Illinois filed a motion to dismiss Jackson's petition. (Doc. 11.)
This matter comes before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson on July 13, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. 15.) Judge Wilkerson's Report recommends that Jackson's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and that the State of Illinois's Motion to Dismiss be granted. Because Jackson objects (Doc. 16), this Court undertakes de novo review of the Report.*fn1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R.CIV.P.72(b); Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court may "accept, reject or modify the recommended decision."FED. R.CIV. P.72(b); Willis v. Caterpillar Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999).
The Court agrees that Jackson's motion should be dismissed. Jackson has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1 (entitled "Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody").) By its plain language, that statute applies only to prisoners in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, a condition Jackson - currently housed in a federal penitentiary (Doc. 1) - clearly does not meet. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989); Martin v. Deuth, 298 F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 2002); (see also Doc. 12, Ex. A, p. 2 (indicating that Jackson's 1990 conviction resulted in a penalty of three years' imprisonment and two years' mandatory supervised release); Ex. C (providing Jackson's history with the Illinois Department of Corrections)). Moreover, Jackson does not claim that his current sentence was enhanced based on an unconstitutionally obtained prior conviction; as such, the Court cannot construe his petition as being brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632-34 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining the paths available to prisoners in custody under sections 2241, 2254, and 2255).*fn2
For these reasons, and because Jackson's objections (Doc. 16) fail to address the substance of the Report, including the issues above, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report. (Doc. 15.) The Court DISMISSES Jackson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), and GRANTS the State of Illinois's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11).
David RHerndon United States ...