Lynam v. Nicklin
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Adopting 4 Report and Recommendation; Denying as Moot 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Jamie Lynam (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 5/4/2015. (PJM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 15-1874(DSD/HB)
Jamie Lynam, #25618-045, FCI Waseca, P.O. Box 1731,
Waseca, MN 56093, pro se.
Ana H. Voss, Assistant U.S. Attorney, 300 South Fourth
Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, counsel for
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer dated April 23,
2015. The magistrate judge recommended that the court transfer the
case, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, the court of petitioner
Jamie Lynam’s conviction. Magistrate Judge Bowbeer also noted that
Lynam’s claims should have been raised in a motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, rather than § 2241, and that the transferee court may
consider the matter in accordance with § 2255.
In response to the
report and recommendation, Lynam does not object to the transfer
but indicates that she would like the matter to be considered under
It also appears that Lynam seeks to amend her petition to
include additional claims under § 2255 for ineffective assistance
of counsel. ECF No. 5.
Under these circumstances, the court finds
it appropriate adopt the report and recommendation and transfer the
matter to the proper forum for consideration.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The magistrate judge’s amended report and recommendation
[ECF No. 4] is adopted in its entirety;
The action is transferred to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri; and
The motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 2] is denied as
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
May 4, 2015
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
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?