Valez-Santos v. Rivera

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 11 Recommendation and overruling Valez-Santo's objections, 18 . Valez-Santos cannot proceed under § 2255's savings clause because he has not shown the § 2255 remedy to be inadequate or ineffective. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/19/2014. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION PETITIONER MELVIN OMAR V ALEZ-SANTOS Reg. #32316-069 v. No. 2:14-cv-105-DPM-BD C. V. RIVERA, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex, Forrest City, Low RESPONDENT ORDER On de novo review, the Court adopts the recommendation, NQ 11, and overrules Valez-Santos's objections, NQ 18. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). ValezSantos cannot proceed under § 2255's savings clause because he has not shown the § ~255 remedy to be inadequate or ineffective. Lopez-Lopez v. Sanders, 590 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2010). No defect, jurisdictional or procedural, exists regarding the designation of Magistrate Judge Deere in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Local Rule 72.1; NQ 1, stamp notation of random assignment. So Ordered.

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?