NEWTON v. U.S., 1:08CR332-1 (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20151103763
Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. BEATY, Jr. , District Judge . On October 7, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Petitioner filed a Response [Doc. #44] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636, noting that he "waives his right to object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to construe his letter as a motion and deny it without prejudice." The Court therefore need not make a de no
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. BEATY, Jr. , District Judge . On October 7, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Petitioner filed a Response [Doc. #44] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636, noting that he "waives his right to object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to construe his letter as a motion and deny it without prejudice." The Court therefore need not make a de nov..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. BEATY, Jr., District Judge.
On October 7, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Petitioner filed a Response [Doc. #44] to the Recommendation within the time limit prescribed by Section 636, noting that he "waives his right to object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to construe his letter as a motion and deny it without prejudice." The Court therefore need not make a de novo review, and the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #42] is affirmed and adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence [Doc. #41] is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner promptly filing a corrected motion on the proper § 2255 forms, and that, finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
