Filed: May 17, 2019
Latest Update: May 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DAVID C. GODBEY , District Judge . The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. Movant filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the Court accepts the
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DAVID C. GODBEY , District Judge . The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. Movant filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the Court accepts the ..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
DAVID C. GODBEY, District Judge.
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. Movant filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent's Motion to Dismiss Section 2255 Motion as Untimely, Dkt. No. 15, is GRANTED, and the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED as time-barred.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Sections 2254 and 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Court, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court denies a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that the petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1
If petitioner files a notice of appeal,
() petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
(X) petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
SOO ORDERED.
