McDonald v. United States of America

Filing 32

ORDER denying 31 Motion for relief from judgment. The Court finds that Petitioner's grounds for relief have been considered and rejected by this Court and the Court of Appeals. This case is over. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 06/18/2019. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

*

TYRONE A. MCDONALD,

*

*

Petitioner,

*

CV 117-167

*

V.

(underlying CR 114-068)

*
*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

*

Respondent.

*

ORDER

On October 17, 2018, this Court denied Petitioner Tyrone A.
McDonald's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 upon adoption of a very thorough and well-

reasoned Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge. (See Docs. 14 & 21.)
motion

for

reconsideration

appealed the matter.

The Court subsequently denied his
as

well.

(Doc.

26.)

Petitioner

On February 28, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit

denied Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability,

essentially dismissing the appeal as frivolous. (Doc. 28.)
Petitioner recently filed a motion for relief from judgment,

citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

Rule 60(b)(6) is

a catch-all category, authorizing a court to grant relief for "any
other reason that justifies relief."

Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh

Produce N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d 1349, 1355 (ll^h cir. 2014).

To

prevail, however, a party "must demonstrate that the circumstances

are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief." Id. (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
Petitioner's motion does not present any reason, let alone

extraordinary circumstances, that would warrant relief.

In fact,

Petitioner's motion is simply a recitation of legal standards and

general assertions of error.

Moreover, Petitioner misstates the

procedural history of this case.

Petitioner asserts that this

Court "misapplied a procedural bar" to his claims and suggests

that the Court failed to address every ground raised by Petitioner

in

his

habeas

petition.

In

actuality,

the

Court

did

not

procedurally bar or default any of Petitioner's claims; rather, it
substantively addressed every ground.

Indeed, Petitioner does not

identify any legal argument or issue not addressed by the Court.

Upon review of the matter prompted by his current motion, the
Court

finds

that

Petitioner's

grounds

for

relief

have

been

considered and rejected by this Court and the Court of Appeals.
This case is over.

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for relief

from judgment (doc. 31) is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this ^_/£^day of June,
2019.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA