Vasiloff v. United States of America

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 30 MOTION for Hearing, DENYING AS MOOT 32 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 44 Request to Delay Ruling and Add One Exhibit. Finally, Petitioner has filed a 41 Request for Immunity Letter, while not styled as a motion, to the extent that it could be so construed, it is hereby DENIED. The Court is of the Opinion that the Magistrate Judge's 37 Findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and her 37 Recommendation is ACCEPTED as set out herein. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 12/4/2013. (JLC)

FILED
2013 Dec-04 AM 09:11
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
)
GARY STEVEN VASILOFF,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 4:10-cv-08001-VEH-PWG
) (Crim. No. 4:07-cr-00337-VEH-PWG)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The previously assigned magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on August 14, 2013
(Doc. # 37), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED. On September 16,
2013, petitioner filed a pleading styled as “Notice of Fraud Upon the Court.” (Doc. # 40). On October
7, 2013, petitioner filed “Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation.” (Doc.
# 42). The Court will treat such filings as motions, or, in the alternative, as objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation.
Also pending are petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. # 30) and petitioner’s Motion
to Appoint Counsel (Doc. # 32); in light of the remainder of this opinion, these motions are hereby
DENIED as MOOT. Next, while not styled as a motion, the court construes petitioner’s “Request to
Delay Ruling and Add One Exhibit” (Doc. # 44) as such; this motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, petitioner’s request to add an exhibit is hereby GRANTED; the
request to dely ruling is hereby DENIED. Finally, petitioner has filed a “Request for Immunity Letter”
(Doc. # 41); while not styled as a motion, to the extent that it could be so construed, it is hereby

DENIED. The court has also considered the “supplemental citations” as set ut in petitioner’s Notice of
Supplemental Citations” (Doc. # 45).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all of the materials in the court file, the Court
is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and her
recommendation is ACCEPTED. To the extent that the petitioner’s filings of September 16, 2013, and
October 7, 2013 (Docs. # 40, 42), are construed as interposing objections to the report and
recommendation, such objections are due to be and hereby are OVERRULED. To the extent that the
petitioner filings (Docs. # 40, 42) are construed as motions, they are due to be and hereby are DENIED.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED. A Final Judgment will be
entered.
As to the foregoing it is SO ORDERED this the 4th day of December, 2013.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge

2