USA v. Walton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
VS. CRIMINAL NO. 5:19-50069- TLB
AARON WALTON DEFENDANT
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant has filed a Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment (ECF No. 58) which has been
referred to the undersigned for consideration. The Government responded on December 18, 2025.
(ECF No. 61). For reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Defendant’s Motion be
DENIED.
Despite his Motion’s caption as one to amend or correct his Judgment of February 4, 2020
(ECF No. 32), what Defendant actually seeks is 210 days credit with the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
on his federal sentence for 210 days he spent in the primary custody of the State of Arkansas in 2019
in Case CR 2018-468.
The undersigned agrees with the Government that Defendant has not exhausted his
administrative remedies with respect the BOP’s computation of his jail time credit. The BOP's
Administrative Remedy Program exists “to allow an inmate to seek formal review of an issue
relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.10. The process is a multi-step
one. First, an inmate must “present an issue of concern informally to staff, and staff shall attempt to
informally resolve the issue before an inmate submits a Request for Administrative Remedy.” Id. at
§ 542.13(a). Second, if the issue is not resolved, the inmate must submit a “formal written
Case 5:19-cr-50069-TLB Document 62 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Administrative Remedy Request” at the institutional level. Id. at § 542.14(a). Third, “[a]n inmate
who is not satisfied with the Warden's response may submit an Appeal ... to the appropriate Regional
Director.” Id. at § 542.15(a). Fourth, “[a]n inmate who is not satisfied with the Regional Director's
response may submit an Appeal ... to the General Counsel.” Id. An inmate may seek judicial review
only after exhausting each of these steps. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992); see also
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (administrative exhaustion “means using all steps that the
agency holds out and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)”).
Here, Defendant has failed to introduce any evidence that he exhausted (or even exercised) the
available administrative processes, and his action must be dismissed for that reason.
If Defendant does not obtain the sought relief through exhaustion of his administrative
remedies, he will need to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 52-55
(1995); United States v. Tindale, 455 F.3d 885, 888 (8th Cir. 2006). Defendant would need to file
his § 2241 claim in the district where Defendant is incarcerated. Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d
709, 711 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2000). If Defendant
remains in FCI Yazoo City when he has exhausted his administrative remedies, suit properly could
be filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The Western
District of Arkansas is not the proper venue for Defendant’s § 2241 claim regarding good time
credit.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
2
Case 5:19-cr-50069-TLB Document 62 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

district court.
RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January 2026.
__________________________________
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Case 5:19-cr-50069-TLB Document 62 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>