Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PATTERSON v. U.S., 7:12-CR-31-002 (HL) (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia Number: infdco20140723b22 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge. Before the Court are the Recommendation (Doc. 219) and Supplemental Recommendation (Doc. 221) of the United States Magistrate Judge that Petitioner's Motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 218) be denied. Petitioner E. Lamar Patterson ("Petitioner") has filed an Objection (Doc. 222) to the Recommendations. After undertaking a de novo review of the Recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts them in full. As t
More

ORDER

HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge.

Before the Court are the Recommendation (Doc. 219) and Supplemental Recommendation (Doc. 221) of the United States Magistrate Judge that Petitioner's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 218) be denied. Petitioner E. Lamar Patterson ("Petitioner") has filed an Objection (Doc. 222) to the Recommendations. After undertaking a de novo review of the Recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts them in full.

As the Recommendations set forth, Petitioner did not file his habeas petition until sixteen days after the one-year statute of limitations for doing so had run. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for the one month that he supposedly did not have access to his legal materials. However, as the Magistrate Judge noted, there is no legal grounds for tolling the statute in these circumstances, so this petition must be dismissed.

After careful consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Petitioner's § 2255 motion is denied, and all pending motions are moot.

The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right, and a certificate of appealability is therefore denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer