Barclay v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 1/23/15. (SAC )
2015 Jan-23 PM 03:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TIONNE SHAMAR BARCLAY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Tionne Shamar Barclay is serving a 180-month sentence imposed by this court following
his plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to
distribute five or more kilograms of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of
cocaine hydrochloride. Now acting pro se, Thomas has filed a motion to vacate, set aside or
correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1). On June 16, 2014, the
magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation, recommending that the court dismiss this
action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 11). Specifically, the magistrate judge
concluded that Barclay’s instant motion is a second or successive § 2255 application for which
he has not obtained an authorizing order required by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). (Id.)
Barclay filed objections on July 28, 2014. (Doc. 13). Although Barclay’s objection spans
twenty pages, he fails to address the magistrate judge’s determination that this action is barred as
successive under § 2255(h). As his objections provide no basis for rejecting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation, the court OVERRULES them.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the findings and recommendation and Barclay’s objections, the court ADOPTS the
magistrate judge’s REPORT and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, the court finds
that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
lack of jurisdiction.
The court will enter a separate Order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2015.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?