Filed: Jun. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2017
Summary: RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is the Motion for Reinstatement of Direct Appeal Right Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. 26) and the Motion to Amend (Doc. 41) filed by Dorvis Lee ("Petitioner"). In his motion, Petitioner requests that the Court reinstate his right to appeal his sentence because his trial counsel "failed to advise him of his right to appeal." (Doc. 26 at p. 1). Petitioner's motion is opposed. (Doc. 39). The Magistrate Judge
Summary: RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is the Motion for Reinstatement of Direct Appeal Right Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. 26) and the Motion to Amend (Doc. 41) filed by Dorvis Lee ("Petitioner"). In his motion, Petitioner requests that the Court reinstate his right to appeal his sentence because his trial counsel "failed to advise him of his right to appeal." (Doc. 26 at p. 1). Petitioner's motion is opposed. (Doc. 39). The Magistrate Judge i..
More
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN A. JACKSON, Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is the Motion for Reinstatement of Direct Appeal Right Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 26) and the Motion to Amend (Doc. 41) filed by Dorvis Lee ("Petitioner"). In his motion, Petitioner requests that the Court reinstate his right to appeal his sentence because his trial counsel "failed to advise him of his right to appeal." (Doc. 26 at p. 1). Petitioner's motion is opposed. (Doc. 39).
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 45), recommending that the Court deny Petitioner's motion and any potential request for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 45 at p. 5). The Magistrate Judge also recommends that the Court deny Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 41) as futile in light of the United States Supreme court's decision in Beckles v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). (Id.).
The Report and Recommendation specifically notified Petitioner that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), he had fourteen (14) days from the date he received the Report and Recommendation to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. (Doc. 45 at p. 1). Petitioner timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 47).1
Having carefully considered Petitioner's motion and related filings—including Petitioner's objections—the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 45) and ADOPTS it as the Court's opinion herein.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reinstatement of Direct Appeal Right Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 26) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Amend (Doc. 41) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED because Petitioner has failed to "ma[ke] a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
