Bradley v. United States of America

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no order to show cause shall issue as to respondent, because the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is time-barred. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movants motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2255 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant is DENIED a certificate ofappealability if he appeals this Order of Dismissal. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 5/4/12. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CORY BRADLEY,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV556 HEA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court upon review of movant’s “Response to Court
Order” [Doc. #6].1 Having carefully reviewed movant’s response, the Court
concludes that movant’s arguments are without merit and that the instant action is
time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(1).2
Accordingly,

1

On April 24, 2012, this Court entered a Opinion Memorandum and Order
instructing movant to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the
instant motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence as time-barred [Doc. #5].
2

Movant claims his counsel was ineffective because he told movant “that the
2255 motion would not be successful being that the direct appeal was not
successful.” Movant asserts that this information was misleading and led to his
untimely filing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no order to show cause shall issue as to
respondent, because the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is time-barred.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant is DENIED a certificate of
appealability if he appeals this Order of Dismissal.
Dated this 4th day of May, 2012.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2