Minnfee v. USA
ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC #3).. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 11/6/2015. (tlh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv566
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Movant Barry Minnfee, proceeding pro se, filed this motion to vacate or correct sentence
under 28 U.S.C. §2255 complaining about a conviction from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. This Court ordered that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules
for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
After review of the pleadings, the magistrate judge issued a report stating that a §2255 motion
must be filed with the sentencing court, and such a motion filed with another court may be dismissed
for want of jurisdiction. The magistrate judge also observed that Minnfee is well known as a
frivolous and malicious litigant who has filed over 130 lawsuits and petitions in the federal district
courts within the State of Texas. Minnfee has repeatedly incurred sanctions as a result of his
litigious activity, some of which have been satisfied and some of which have not. The magistrate
judge therefore recommended that Minnfee’s petition be dismissed for want of jurisdiction and as
barred by those sanctions which as yet are unsatisfied.
A copy of this report was sent to Minnfee at his last known address, return receipt requested,
but no objections have been received; accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the district
judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error,
from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted
and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the report of the magistrate judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined that the report of the magistrate judge is correct. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243
(1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the report of the magistrate judge (docket no. 3) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction and
as barred by the unsatisfied sanctions previously imposed upon Minnfee. Such dismissal is with
prejudice as to the refiling of this motion to vacate in the Eastern District of Texas, but without
prejudice to the refiling of this motion to vacate in a court of proper jurisdiction once all sanctions
have been satisfied. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
SIGNED this 6th day of November, 2015.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?