CAMON v. U.S., 7:03-CR-16 (HL) (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20141015895
Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge. This case is before the Court on a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff (Doc. 115), entered September 17, 2014. Judge Langstaff recommends that Respondent's Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 111) be granted and that Petitioner's motion (collectively filed as Docs. 89, 91, 108) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 be dismissed as untimely. Petitioner filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 116). The Court has reviewe
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge. This case is before the Court on a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff (Doc. 115), entered September 17, 2014. Judge Langstaff recommends that Respondent's Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 111) be granted and that Petitioner's motion (collectively filed as Docs. 89, 91, 108) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 be dismissed as untimely. Petitioner filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 116). The Court has reviewed..
More
ORDER
HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge.
This case is before the Court on a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff (Doc. 115), entered September 17, 2014. Judge Langstaff recommends that Respondent's Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 111) be granted and that Petitioner's motion (collectively filed as Docs. 89, 91, 108) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be dismissed as untimely.
Petitioner filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 116). The Court has reviewed the objections and conducted a de novo review of the Recommendation. Upon review, the Court accepts and adopts the Recommendation. Petitioner's objections are overruled. Accordingly, Respondent's Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 111) is granted. Petitioner's § 2255 motion (Doc. 89, 91, 108) is dismissed.
The Court further finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right such that a certificate of appealability should be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). A certificate of appealability is denied in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
