From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Palmer v. U.S.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
Jan 20, 2011
3:08-CV-16-GCM-DSC (W.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2011)

Summary

finding no authority in Fourth Circuit for equitable tolling based on actual innocence

Summary of this case from Boyce v. United Stated

Opinion

3:08-CV-16-GCM-DSC.

January 20, 2011


ORDER


This matter is before the Court upon the memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate David S. Cayer, filed December 22, 2010. The parties were advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, written objections to the memorandum and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service of the memorandum. It appears to the Court that the parties have not filed any such objections. After an independent and thorough review of the magistrate's memorandum, the Court concludes that there is no clear error on the face of the record and that the recommendation to grant the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss the Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence is correct and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate are affirmed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the memorandum and recommendation of the magistrate is hereby AFFIRMED.

Signed: January 20, 2011

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

DECISION BY COURT. This action having come before the Court by Motion and a decision having been rendered;

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment is hereby entered in accordance with the Court's January 20, 2011 Order.

Signed: January 20, 2011


Summaries of

Palmer v. U.S.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
Jan 20, 2011
3:08-CV-16-GCM-DSC (W.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2011)

finding no authority in Fourth Circuit for equitable tolling based on actual innocence

Summary of this case from Boyce v. United Stated
Case details for

Palmer v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:LYNN ALAN PALMER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent

Court:United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

Date published: Jan 20, 2011

Citations

3:08-CV-16-GCM-DSC (W.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2011)

Citing Cases

Boyce v. United Stated

However, courts have recognized that the Fourth Circuit has not applied that concept to time-barred claims of…