Lynn v. USA

Filing 28

Order 24 Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations re: 2 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Movant's objections raise claims that were not actually raised in his § 2255 motion, his filing is liberally construed as a mo tion to amend his § 2255 motion to add those new claims, and the motion to amend is GRANTED. This case is RE-REFERRED to the U.S. Magistrate Judge to address the movant's new claims. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 6/6/2017) (aaa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JAMES HARLAN LYNN,
ID # 46080-177,
Movant,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15-CV-1819-N
No. 3:13-CR-100-N

ORDER
Before the Court is the Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrates Report and
Recommendation, received May 9, 2017 (doc. 27.) The movant contends that the Magistrate Judge’s
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation, filed April 3, 2017, did not address all of the claims
he raised in his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and memorandum in support.
The movant’s objections are overruled. The recommendation addressed all of the claims that
the movant raised in his § 2255 motion and memorandum. Some of the claims that the movant
contends were not addressed were not actually raised in his § 2255 motion and memorandum.
Accordingly, after reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the movant’s
objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is of the opinion that the
Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings
and Conclusions of the Court.
Because the movant’s objections raise claims that were not actually raised in his § 2255
motion, his filing is liberally construed as a motion to amend his § 2255 motion to add those new
claims, and the motion to amend is GRANTED. See Hale v. Young, 584 F. App’x 246, 247 (5th
Cir. 2014) (although claims raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation are generally not properly before the district court, the district court may construe
the objections as a motion to amend the § 2255 motion) (citing United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d
626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992), United States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996 )). This case is REREFERRED to the U.S. Magistrate Judge to address the movant’s new claims.
SIGNED this 6th day of June, 2017.

DAVID C. GODBEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2