Spotts v. United States of America
Filing
1229
ORDER The Court Accepts and Incorporates the 1228 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, Denies the Ojbections, Denies 1211 Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 2255 and Dismisses this case with Prejudice from the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 5/15/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (skm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS,
Movant,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-00354
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:98-00047-01
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Respondent.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Movant Kelvin Andre Spotts’ Objections to the Proposed
Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued on May 3, 2012. [ECF No. 1228].
As clearly and correctly stated in the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Movant’s pro se
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF No. 1211] is
a successive application for relief, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied his petition for
an order authorizing this Court to consider his successive application. [ECF No. 1226]. Thus, as
stated in the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider
Movant’s application.
The Court has reviewed Movant’s objection and finds no basis for this Court to
exercise jurisdiction on his successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and
INCORPORATES the Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, DENIES
the objections, DENIES Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to
§ 2255, and DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE from the docket of this Court.
The Court additionally has considered whether to grant a certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. at § 2253(c)(2). The standard is satisfied only upon a
showing that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by this
Court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). The Court concludes that the governing standard
is not satisfied in this instance. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER:
May 15, 2012
ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-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?