U.S. v. BAKRI, 3:00-CR-76-TAV-CCS. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20160108d22
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 07, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS A. VARLAN , Chief District Judge . This criminal case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., on December 18, 2015 (the "R&R") [Doc. 172]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Shirley finds that the petition for writ of habeas corpus along with the files and record of this case conclusively reveal that the defendant is not entitled to the requested relief. There have been no timely objections to the R&R,
Summary: ORDER THOMAS A. VARLAN , Chief District Judge . This criminal case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., on December 18, 2015 (the "R&R") [Doc. 172]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Shirley finds that the petition for writ of habeas corpus along with the files and record of this case conclusively reveal that the defendant is not entitled to the requested relief. There have been no timely objections to the R&R, a..
More
ORDER
THOMAS A. VARLAN, Chief District Judge.
This criminal case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., on December 18, 2015 (the "R&R") [Doc. 172]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Shirley finds that the petition for writ of habeas corpus along with the files and record of this case conclusively reveal that the defendant is not entitled to the requested relief. There have been no timely objections to the R&R, and enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Crim. P. 51.
After a careful review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate Judge Shirley's analysis and recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling. Therefore, the Court will ACCEPT IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 172]. The petition [Doc. 170], and the amended petition [Doc. 171], are hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
