Filed: Jun. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION MOTION TO VACATE 28 U.S.C. 2255 ORINDA D. EVANS , District Judge . The matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. 244] and Movant's objections thereto [Doc. 246]. The Court reviews de nova the portions of the R&R to which Movant has objected and reviews for plain error the remaining portions. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Slay , 714 F.2d 1093 , 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION MOTION TO VACATE 28 U.S.C. 2255 ORINDA D. EVANS , District Judge . The matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. 244] and Movant's objections thereto [Doc. 246]. The Court reviews de nova the portions of the R&R to which Movant has objected and reviews for plain error the remaining portions. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Slay , 714 F.2d 1093 , 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam)..
More
ORDER AND OPINION
MOTION TO VACATE 28 U.S.C. § 2255
ORINDA D. EVANS, District Judge.
The matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. 244] and Movant's objections thereto [Doc. 246]. The Court reviews de nova the portions of the R&R to which Movant has objected and reviews for plain error the remaining portions. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
I. Procedural History
On March 15, 2006, Movant entered a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute heroin and cocaine and one count of aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine base ("crack"). (Doc. 134; Doc. 51; Doc. 217, Attach. 1). On August 11, 2006, this Court sentenced Movant to a net total of 240 months of imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release, which was entered on August 14, 2006. (Docs. 196, 202). Movant did not file a direct appeal of his convictions and sentences.
Movant filed the instant § 2255 motion on July 23, 2017, and raises three claims. (Doc. 238). Movant argues that the motion is not time-barred because he has constitutional claims, he is pro se, he is indigent, and he does not know the law. (Id.). The Government filed a motion to dismiss the motion as untimely. (Doc. 243).
United States Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand entered the final R&R on April 26, 2018, and recommended that this Court grant the Government §s motion to dismiss the § 2255 motion as untimely. (Doc. 244). Magistrate Judge Anand also concluded that Movant had not demonstrated that equitable tolling was warranted. (Id.).
II. Movant's Objections
Movant's objections merely appear to reiterate his claim that the motion is not untimely because his issues are constitutional claims. (See generally Doc. 246).1 Movant further argues that Magistrate Judge Anand should not have dismissed the motion without analyzing the merits of the case. Movant, however, still provides no reason why he waited nearly eleven years after the limitation period expired to file his § 2255 motion.
Movant's objections are without merit, and the Court finds no plain error in the remainder of the R&R. The Court agrees with the R&R's conclusion that the instant § 2255 motion is untimely.
Accordingly,
The Court OVERRULES Movant's objections [Doc. 246], ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 244] as the judgment of this Court, and denies a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
