United States v. Bowman

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS BOWMAN Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Date published: Feb 24, 2020

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:17-CR-0189-LMM-CMS (N.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2020)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:17-CR-0189-LMM-CMS

02-24-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS BOWMAN Defendant.

LEIGH MARTIN MAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

This case comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Dkt. No. [71] recommending that Defendant's Motion to Arrest Judgment [69] be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Defendant filed Objections [75]. After due consideration, the Court enters the following Order.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations for clear error if no objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections, however, the district court must review de novo any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that is the subject of a proper objection. Id. As Defendant filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings, the Court reviews the challenged findings and recommendations on a de novo basis.

II. DISCUSSION

To begin, Defendant does not identify—as is required—with any specificity the basis of his objection. See Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989) (objections to an R&R "shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection."). Rather, he generally asks the Court "to reconsider because the court never had jurisdiction." Dkt. No. [75] at 1. Even so, as the Magistrate Judge explained, a motion to arrest judgment must be filed within 14 days after the court accepts a plea of guilty. Dkt. No. [71] at 2 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 34(b)). Defendant filed his motion to arrest more than two years after the Court accepted his plea of guilty. Dkt. Nos. [11, 69]. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on Defendant's Motion.

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections to the R&R [75] and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [71] as the opinion of this Court. Defendant's Motion to Arrest Judgment [69] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of February, 2020.

/s/_________

LEIGH MARTIN MAY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE