NEWMAN v. U.S., 2:11cv884-MHT (WO). (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20140319d59
Visitors: 22
Filed: Mar. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge. The magistrate judge entered a recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. After a review of the recommendation and after an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the court finds that the recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. # 7) is adopted; and the 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion is denied because the 2255 motion was filed after expirat
Summary: ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge. The magistrate judge entered a recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. After a review of the recommendation and after an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the court finds that the recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. # 7) is adopted; and the 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion is denied because the 2255 motion was filed after expirati..
More
ORDER
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
The magistrate judge entered a recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. After a review of the recommendation and after an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the court finds that the recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. # 7) is adopted; and the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is denied because the § 2255 motion was filed after expiration of the applicable limitation period and for the other reasons stated in the recommendation.
A separate judgment shall issue.
Source: Leagle
