From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joseph v. Wells

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
Feb 3, 2009
CV 308-050 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2009)

Summary

noting that "the mere fact that relief under § 2255 is time-barred is not alone sufficient to make § 2241 an available remedy"

Summary of this case from Blakeney v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

Opinion

CV 308-050.

February 3, 2009


ORDER


After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, the above-captioned petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Joseph v. Wells

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
Feb 3, 2009
CV 308-050 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2009)

noting that "the mere fact that relief under § 2255 is time-barred is not alone sufficient to make § 2241 an available remedy"

Summary of this case from Blakeney v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
Case details for

Joseph v. Wells

Case Details

Full title:RONICTOR JOSEPH, Petitioner, v. WALT WELLS, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division

Date published: Feb 3, 2009

Citations

CV 308-050 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2009)

Citing Cases

Blakeney v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

Additionally, had Petitioner attempted to come within the savings clause by asserting that any § 2255 motion…