Thomas v. United States of America

Filing 9

ORDER- re: Government's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Motion Under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence 6 . The R&R 8 recommended that Respondent's motion to dismiss be denied. The court is of the op inion that the Report is due to be, and hereby is, ADOPTED, and the Recommendation is ACCEPTED. In accordance with the Recommendation, the Governments Motion is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/28/2012. (AVC)

FILED
2012 Nov-28 PM 01:42
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DWIGHT ANDRE THOMAS, JR.,
Movant/Defendant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-8019-RDP-JEO
2:09-cr-0277-RDP-JEO

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Motion
Under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence. (Doc. #6). On November
6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #8) recommending that
Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied. (Id.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation
were due by November 20, 2012. (Id. at 8). However, no objections have been filed.
Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all of the materials in the court file,1
including the Report and Recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the Report is due to be,
and hereby is, ADOPTED, and the Recommendation is ACCEPTED. In accordance with the
Recommendation, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Motion Under Title 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Doc. #6) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to refiling.

1

The court notes that it was not required to conduct an independent review of the report and recommendation
in this case because no party has filed objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)(“It
does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions,
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). Nonetheless, the court has
reviewed the magistrate’s report and agrees with his conclusions.

DONE and ORDERED this

28th

day of November, 2012.

___________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2