Monsegue v. United States, CR414-019. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190722771
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES E. GRAHAM , Magistrate Judge . Movant Frank Monsegue, Sr., moves the Court to "supplement" his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Doc. 175. That motion, of course, was already recommended for denial by the undersigned as an unauthorized, successive motion. Doc. 173. Nothing in his motion to supplement demonstrates that his motion was mischaracterized, and nothing in it surmounts the jurisdictional barrier that prevents this Court from considering it absent authorizati
Summary: ORDER JAMES E. GRAHAM , Magistrate Judge . Movant Frank Monsegue, Sr., moves the Court to "supplement" his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Doc. 175. That motion, of course, was already recommended for denial by the undersigned as an unauthorized, successive motion. Doc. 173. Nothing in his motion to supplement demonstrates that his motion was mischaracterized, and nothing in it surmounts the jurisdictional barrier that prevents this Court from considering it absent authorizatio..
More
ORDER
JAMES E. GRAHAM, Magistrate Judge.
Movant Frank Monsegue, Sr., moves the Court to "supplement" his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Doc. 175. That motion, of course, was already recommended for denial by the undersigned as an unauthorized, successive motion. Doc. 173. Nothing in his motion to supplement demonstrates that his motion was mischaracterized, and nothing in it surmounts the jurisdictional barrier that prevents this Court from considering it absent authorization from the Court of Appeals. Compare docs. 172, 173 & 175; see doc. 178 (Government's opposition). To the extent Monsegue asks this Court to reconsider its recommendation that his amended motion be denied, that request too is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
