Vincent v. USA

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7 Report and Recommendations on 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Lawrence E. Vincent. The Court DENIES the 1 motion to vacate DISMISSES the case WITH PREJUDICE, and ORDERS that it be STRICKEN from the Court's docket. The Court directs the Clerk to enter a separate Judgment Order. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 6/11/2012. (Copy Pro se petitioner/certified mail)(kd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/11/2012: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (kd).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA LAWRENCE E. VINCENT, Petitioner, v. // CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11CV98 CRIMINAL NO. 1:07CR33-1 (Judge Keeley) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION After the pro se petitioner, Lawrence E. Vincent (“Vincent”), filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on June 20, 2011, the Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull for initial screening and a report and recommendation in accordance with LR PL P 2. On November 16, 2011, Magistrate Judge Kaull issued an Opinion and Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which recommended that Vincent’s motion to vacate be denied and his case be dismissed with prejudice because his § 2255 motion was untimely, having been filed two and a half years after the statute of limitations expired on December 18, 2008. He further concluded that Vincent was not entitled to have the statute of limitations equitably tolled. The R&R also specifically warned Vincent that his failure to object to the R&R would result in the waiver of any appellate rights on this issue. Vincent, however, failed to file any VINCENT v. UNITED STATES 1:11CV98 1:07CR33-1 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION objections.1 Consequently, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (dkt. no. 7, case no. 1:11CV98 & dkt. no. 223, case no. 1:07CR33), DENIES the motion to vacate (dkt. no. 1, case no. 1:11CV98 & dkt. no. 210, case no. 1:07CR33), DISMISSES the case WITH PREJUDICE, and ORDERS that it be STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk to enter a separate Judgment Order and to transmit copies of both Orders to counsel of record and to the pro se petitioner, certified mail, return receipt requested. Dated: June 11, 2012 /s/ Irene M. Keeley IRENE M. KEELEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Vincent’s failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only waives his appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issue presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997). 2

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?