WOODLEY v. U.S., CR408-315 (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140403907
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge. Before the Court is Petitioner Antonio Dawon Woodly's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 13.) In the motion, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's order (Doc. 10) adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7), and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. After carefully reviewing Petitioner's motion and the record in this case, the Court can find no reason to disturb its prior order. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge. Before the Court is Petitioner Antonio Dawon Woodly's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 13.) In the motion, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's order (Doc. 10) adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7), and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. After carefully reviewing Petitioner's motion and the record in this case, the Court can find no reason to disturb its prior order. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion i..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court is Petitioner Antonio Dawon Woodly's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 13.) In the motion, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's order (Doc. 10) adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7), and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. After carefully reviewing Petitioner's motion and the record in this case, the Court can find no reason to disturb its prior order. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion is DENIED.
Along with alleging errors of law, Petitioner contends that the Court failed to consider his timely objections. (Doc. 13 at 1-2.) Indeed, the order adopting the Report and Recommendation stated that Petitioner filed no objections. (Doc. 10 at 1.) This Report and Recommendation was the second issued by the Magistrate Judge and came after Petitioner was granted leave to amend his § 2255 petition. (Doc. 7 at 1.) The objections Petitioner cites are those he filed in response to the first Report and Recommendation. In any event, the Court did consider those objections when assessing the merits of the § 2255 petition. However, those objections lacked merit and did not serve to dissuade this Court from adopting the Magistrate Judge's second Report and Recommendation, which incorporated the first, and deny his § 2255 petition.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
