Goins v. United States of America
ORDER ADOPTING 3 Report and Recommendations, OVERRULING Petitioner's objections, DISMISSING Plaintiff's 2255 motion, DENYING a COA in this case and CLOSING this civil action. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 01/18/2017. (maa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
-J ! r 1
ZOIl JAN 18 A D UT
so. C!OT. fT HA.
MICHAEL DERRICK GOINS,
(Formerly CR 314-002)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed. (Doc.
nos. 7, 8.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the motion filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 on the basis it is untimely and Petitioner is not eligible for equitable tolling.
("See doc. no. 2.) Nothing in Petitioner's objections undermines the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation, and only two objections warrant further comment.
Petitioner first objects the Court did not liberally construe his motions requesting
documents as a §2255 motion challenging the validity of his sentence. (Doc. no. 7, p. 2.);
see United States v. Goins. CR 314-002, doc. nos. 384, 386 (S.D. Ga. April 19, 2016)
(hereinafter "CR 314-002"). "Where a [pro se] motion, nominally seeking an extension of
time, contains allegations sufficient to support a claim under section 2255, a district court is
empowered, and in some instances may be required, ... to treat that motion as a substantive
motion for relief under section 2255." Stewart v. United States. 646 F.3d 856, 857 n. 1 (11th
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?