Denman v. USA

Filing 17

ORDER ACCEPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The 13 motion for reconsideration under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) is CONSTRUED as a successive motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and that it i s TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to OPEN and CLOSE, for administrative purposes, a new civil action based on the finding that the Rule 60(b) motion is a successive application. Civil case 3:17-cv-1144-G opened. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 5/1/2017) (axm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

JEFFREY DENMAN, #06640-078,
Petitioner,
VS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:16-CV-1188-G (BK)
CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
3:05-CR-051(03)-G

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a
recommendation in this case. Petitioner filed objections, and the district court has
made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and
recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the
court ACCEPTS the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge.
It is therefore ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration under FED. R.
CIV. P. 60(b) is CONSTRUED as a successive motion to vacate sentence under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 and that it is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1631.*
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to OPEN and CLOSE, for
administrative purposes, a new civil action (NOS 510, assigned to the same district
judge and magistrate judge as this case) based on the finding that the Rule 60(b)
motion is a successive application.

May 1, 2017.

___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge

*

An order transferring a successive application to the court of appeals is
not a final order requiring a certificate of appealability. See United States v. Fulton,
780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015); Brewer v. Stephens, 605 Fed. App’x. 417 (5th Cir.
2015) (per curiam).
-2-