Opinion
CRIMINAL 7:18-CR-60 (WLS-TQL) 7:20-CV-138 (WLS-TQL)
08-09-2021
PAUL A. BRADFORD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Before the Court is a Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Langstaff on April 7, 2021. (Doc. 70.) Therein, Judge Langstaff recommends denying the Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because Petitioner has failed to show that his counsel's representation was inadequate and any claim of sentencing error is procedurally defaulted. Fourteen days were provided to object to the Recommendation, but no objection was filed. Furthermore, the docket reflects that the Recommendation mailed to Petitioner was returned to the Court as undeliverable on April 19, 2021. Thereafter, on July 20, 2021, the Court received a letter from Petitioner inquiring into the status of his pending motion to vacate, and a copy of the docket sheet was mailed to Petitioner. (Doc. 72.) More than fourteen days have passed since he inquired into the status of his case, but no objection or motion for extension of time to file an objection have been filed. Thus, the Court proceeds with issuing this order. The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and finds no clear error or manifest injustice therein. See Taylor v. Pekerol, 760 Fed.Appx. 647, 654 (11th Cir. 2019); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Judge Langstaff also denied as moot Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 70 at 9.)
Accordingly, upon full review and consideration of the record, the Court finds that the Recommendation (Doc. 70) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Petitioner's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 65) is DENIED.
The Court also finds that Petitioner Bradford has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right and that he did not object to Judge Langstaff s finding of the same. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
SO ORDERED.