Gilreath v. U.S., 1:18-CV-1845-ODE-JKL. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20180719b04
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER ORINDA D. EVANS , District Judge . This pro se criminal case is before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III filed May 10, 2018 [Doc. 378] ("R&R"). No objections have been filed. 1 In the R&R, Judge Larkins recommends that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, Judge Larkins found that Movant's petition is a successive 2255 motion which this Court cannot consider because Movant failed to obt
Summary: ORDER ORINDA D. EVANS , District Judge . This pro se criminal case is before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III filed May 10, 2018 [Doc. 378] ("R&R"). No objections have been filed. 1 In the R&R, Judge Larkins recommends that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, Judge Larkins found that Movant's petition is a successive 2255 motion which this Court cannot consider because Movant failed to obta..
More
ORDER
ORINDA D. EVANS, District Judge.
This pro se criminal case is before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III filed May 10, 2018 [Doc. 378] ("R&R"). No objections have been filed.1
In the R&R, Judge Larkins recommends that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, Judge Larkins found that Movant's petition is a successive § 2255 motion which this Court cannot consider because Movant failed to obtain authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for consideration of a second or successive § 2255 petition.
The Court having read and considered the R&R and noting the absence of any objections, it is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion and order of the Court. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, Movant's petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Movant filed what was docketed as a motion for extension of time to file response to R&R [Doc. 380]. That motion was granted; however, the Court also explained that without jurisdiction the Court must dismiss the case. Movant has filed no objections to the R&R and the deadline to do so has passed.
Source: Leagle
