Opinion
Civil Action 1:18-CV-2844-ELR
07-28-2021
TOVIAS DUNTON, BOP Reg. #54764-019, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 116-CR-215-ELR-AJB-1
MOTION TO VACATE 28 U.S.C. § 2255
ORDER
Eleanor L. Ross United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman. [Doc. 96]. Petitioner filed a pro se §2255 Motion. [Doc. 49]. The Government filed a response in opposition, [Doc. 55], and Petitioner filed a reply. [Doc. 57]. Petitioner then filed a supplemental brief through counsel. [Doc. 75]. The Government filed a response in opposition [Doc. 80], and the Petitioner filed a reply. [Doc. 89]. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on one of the grounds of Petitioner's pro se §2255 motion. [Docs. 82 and 90]. The Court ordered Petitioner's counsel to file a post-hearing brief, but counsel failed to do so. [Docs. 82 and 92]. Judge Baverman recommends that Petitioner's § 2255 Motion [Doc. 49] be denied and a Certificate of Appealability be denied as well. Judge Baverman also recommends that Petitioner's counseled supplemental petition [Doc. 75] be dismissed as untimely.
After conducting a careful and complete review of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, a district court judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams v Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11Cir. 1982). No. objections to the magistrate judge's R&R have been filed, and therefore, the Court has reviewed the R&R for plain error. See United States v Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11
Cir. 1983). The Court finds no error.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 96] as the Opinion and Order of this Court. For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. 49]. Additionally, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability because after considering 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Court also DISMISSES as untimely the supplemental petition. [Doc. 75]. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE the civil case associated with Petitioner's § 2255 Motion: Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-2844-ELR.
SO ORDERED.