Filed: Jul. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER , Senior District Judge . After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the March 26, 2019 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and movant's April 3, 2019 objections, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court. Accordingly, the motion t
Summary: ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER , Senior District Judge . After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the March 26, 2019 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and movant's April 3, 2019 objections, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court. Accordingly, the motion to..
More
ORDER
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, Senior District Judge.
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the March 26, 2019 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and movant's April 3, 2019 objections, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court. Accordingly, the motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied with prejudice.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability. The court adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that the movant has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.473, 484 (2000).
If movant files a notice of appeal,
() movant may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
(X) movant must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED.
