DIAZ v. U.S., 5:08-cr-7. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20170106h67
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD , Chief District Judge . After an independent and de novo review of the record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (dkt. no. 4), to which Objections have been filed. 1 Fernando Arvizu Diaz's ("Diaz") Objections are not responsive to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (dkt. no. 4), as the opinion of the Court. Consequently, t
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD , Chief District Judge . After an independent and de novo review of the record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (dkt. no. 4), to which Objections have been filed. 1 Fernando Arvizu Diaz's ("Diaz") Objections are not responsive to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (dkt. no. 4), as the opinion of the Court. Consequently, th..
More
ORDER
LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge.
After an independent and de novo review of the record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (dkt. no. 4), to which Objections have been filed.1 Fernando Arvizu Diaz's ("Diaz") Objections are not responsive to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (dkt. no. 4), as the opinion of the Court. Consequently, the Court DISMISSES Diaz's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and DENIES Diaz leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and a Certificate of Appealability. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Although Diaz labeled his pleading as a "Motion for Reconsideration", (dkt. no. 5), the Court construes Plaintiff's Motion as Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. "Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category." Retic v. United States, 215 F. App'x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003)). Federal courts "may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion's claim and its underlying legal basis." Id. (quoting Castro, 540 U.S. at 381-82).
Source: Leagle
