Ivey v. United States of America
Filing
8
ORDER adopting 3 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court; denying Petitioner's 7 Motion to hold CV 116-55 in abeyance; denying Petitioner's 4 Motion to Amend; terminating Petitioner's second § 2255 motion; closing CV 116-75; and determining that the Court will address his original § 2255 motion in CV 116-55 on the merits. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 8/4/2016. (jah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
DARTANUM DEMETRIUS IVEY,
Petitioner,
CV 116-055
v.
(Formerly CR 109-104)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
DARTANUM DEMETRIUS IVEY,
Petitioner,
CV 116-075
v.
(Formerly CR 109-104)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which no objections have been filed. In lieu of
objections, Petitioner has filed a motion to hold CV 116-55 in abeyance. (Doc. no. 7.)
Petitioner argues that the case should be stayed due to the Supreme Court's review of
Beckles v. United States. 616 F. App'x 415,416 (11th Cir. 2015), cert, granted. No. 15-8544,
2016 WL 1029080 (U.S. June 27, 2016). Because Beckles addressed the propriety of
applying Johnson v. United States. 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) to § 4B.1 of the Sentencing
Guidelines and not 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion. (CV 116055, doc. no. 7.)
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge as its opinion, DENIES Petitioner's motion to amend (CV 116-55, doc. no. 4.),
TERMINATES Petitioner's second § 2255 motion, and CLOSES CV 116-75. The Court
will address his original § 2255 motion in CV 116-55 on the merits.
SO ORDERED this *4^ay ofAugust, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.
HONORABLE J. RANDAL HALL
.UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
sRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?