ORDER

LEIGH MARTIN MAY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Movant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, Dkt.No. [69]; the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Dkt.No. [70]; and Movant's document titled "Appeal," which the Clerk has construed as objections, Dkt. No. [72]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion to vacate be dismissed as untimely and a certificate of appealability be denied. (Dkt. No. [70] at 6.)

The district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made" and "may accept, reject, or modify [the R&R], in whole or in part. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed.R. Civ.P. 72, advisory committee note, 1983 Addition, Subdivision (b).

In his objections, Movant argues that his motion to vacate is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). (Dkt. No. [72] at 1-2.) Section 2255(f)(3) provides for a one-year statute of limitations running from the date on which the United States Supreme Court initially recognized a new right that is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Movant contends that such a right is found in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which was decided less than three months before he executed his motion to vacate.

As the Magistrate Judge explained, Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which is part of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) and concerns violent felonies. (Dkt. No. [70] at 3-4.) Movant was not sentenced under the residual clause. Instead, Movant was sentenced under § 924(e)(1) and § 924(e)(2)(A), based on his previous drug offenses. Movant incorrectly suggests that the residual clause is part of § 924(e)(1). (Dkt. No. [72] at 2.) The Court concludes that Johnson does not apply to Movant, and thus he cannot use § 2255(f)(3) to establish timeliness.

Accordingly, Movant's construed objections, Dkt. No. [72], are OVERRULED; the Magistrate Judge's R&R, Dkt. No. [70], is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court; the motion to vacate, Dkt. No. [69], is DISMISSED as untimely; and a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to close civil action number 1:15-CV-3177-LMM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.