Pilati v. United States of America

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION; The Court is of the Opinion that the Magistrate Judge's 11 Report is hereby ADOPTED and his 11 Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 7/29/2016. (JLC)

FILED
2016 Jul-29 PM 01:02
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
JOHN PILATI,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent.
)

3:12-cv-08012-VEH-JEO
3:07-cr-00082-VEH-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is a counseled “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Conviction
and Sentence” filed by the petitioner, John Pilati (“Petitioner”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge for report and
recommendation.1 The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation
recommending that the motion be denied. Petitioner filed objections. The Government
filed a notice of no objections.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the
magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and his

1

The magistrate judge to whom the motion was referred was, by consent of the parties,
the trial judge in the underlying criminal action.

recommendation is ACCEPTED. The Court EXPRESSLY REJECTS all of
Petitioner’s objections and finds no objected-to errors in the report and
recommendation.2 Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is due to be DENIED and the
petition is due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A Final Judgment Order
will be entered.3
DONE this the 29th day of July, 2016.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge

2

Which is the standard of review, as it is the objecting party’s obligation to make their
objections with specificity. While Petitioner clearly disagrees with almost every aspect of the
sixty-four page report and recommendation (doc. 11) in his forty-three page objections (doc. 14),
the court finds no merit in any of the objections.
3

The court had concerns about its jurisdiction in this case (see doc. 16), but finds that it
has such jurisdiction for the reasons set out in the Government’s response (doc. 18).

2