DOWLINGS v. U.S., CR413-171. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20151123862
Visitors: 15
Filed: Nov. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2), to which an objection has been filed (Doc. 5). The Report and Recommendation concluded that Petitioner's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 should be denied as untimely. (Doc. 2 at 1.) Petitioner argued in his objection, however, that he was entitled to equitable tolling on the basis that he had been denied access to legal documents while being transferr
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2), to which an objection has been filed (Doc. 5). The Report and Recommendation concluded that Petitioner's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 should be denied as untimely. (Doc. 2 at 1.) Petitioner argued in his objection, however, that he was entitled to equitable tolling on the basis that he had been denied access to legal documents while being transferre..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2), to which an objection has been filed (Doc. 5). The Report and Recommendation concluded that Petitioner's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 should be denied as untimely. (Doc. 2 at 1.) Petitioner argued in his objection, however, that he was entitled to equitable tolling on the basis that he had been denied access to legal documents while being transferred to another institution. (Doc. 5 at 2.) Even assuming Petitioner was denied access to his documents, this does not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to grant petitioner equitable tolling. Paulcin v. McDonough, 259 F. App'x 211, 213 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Akins v. United States, 204 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2000) (denying equitable tolling where petitioner was subject to lockdowns and misplaced legal papers).
After a careful de novo review of the record, the Court finds Petitioner's objections without merit. Accordingly, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case and Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
