George v. United States of America

Filing 45

ORDER: Defendant's 42 "Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Rule 60(b) to Redocket this Case for the Court to Respond to the Objections and Reconsider the Newly Discovered Evidence and Perj ured Testimony by Authorities and Other Witnesses of this Case" is granted to the extent that the Court has considered Defendant's objections and denied to the extent it seeks that the Court's 02/09/11 Order be amended, altered, or vac ated. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's 41 "Objections and Protest to the Order Issued on 01/20/11 Due to the Courts Abuse of Discretion of Overlooking Constitutional Violations of 5th and 14th Due Process Rights of the Report and Recommendation" is denied. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 03/10/11. (NKS)

George v. United States of America

Doc. 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jerry James George, Defendant/Movant, vs. United States of America, Plaintiff/Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CR-05-00709-PCT-NVW No. CV-09-08226-PCT-NVW (MEA) ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant's "Objections and Protest to the Order Issued on January 20th 2011 Due to the Courts Abuse of Discretion of Overlooking Constitutional Violations of 5th and 14th Due Process Rights of the Report and Recommendation" (Doc. 41) and "Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Rule 60(b) to Redocket this Case for the Court to Respond to the Objections and Reconsider the Newly Discovered Evidence and Perjured Testimony by Authorities and Other Witnesses of this Case" (Doc. 42). Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 (Doc. 1) on January 21, 2011 (Doc. 36). The R&R notified the parties that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), they had fourteen days within which to file objections to the R&R. Having received no objections after the fourteen days expired, the Court issued its order accepting the R&R on February 9, 2011 (Doc. 39).

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant's objection to the R&R (Doc. 41) is dated February 4, 2011; however, the Court did not receive the objection until February 16, 2011. Although Defendant's objection thus appears to have been untimely filed, the Court has nonetheless considered it. However, neither Defendant's objections to the R&R (Doc. 41) or his arguments in his motion for reconsideration (Doc. 42) are sufficiently meritorious to persuade the Court that the R&R should not have been adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's "Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Rule 60(b) to Redocket this Case for the Court to Respond to the Objections and Reconsider the Newly Discovered Evidence and Perjured Testimony by Authorities and Other Witnesses of this Case" (Doc. 42) is granted to the extent that the Court has considered Defendant's objections and denied to the extent it seeks that the Court's February 9, 2011 Order be amended, altered, or vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's "Objections and Protest to the Order Issued on January 20th 2011 Due to the Courts Abuse of Discretion of Overlooking Constitutional Violations of 5th and 14th Due Process Rights of the Report and Recommendation" (Doc. 41) is denied. DATED this 10th day of March, 2011.

-2-