Opinion
5:99-cr-00082-MTT-CHW-1
07-07-2023
NATHANIEL WATSON, JR Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES H. WEIGLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In November 2020, the Court entered judgment denying Nathaniel Watson's first motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docs. 44, 45). Watson has now filed a second Section 2255 motion. (Doc. 60). This Court may not entertain second or successive Section 2255 motions absent prior authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Because Watson has not obtained such authorization, it is RECOMMENDED that his Section 2255 (Doc. 60) motion be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Any objection is limited in length to TWENTY (20) PAGES. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. The District Judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO RECOMMENDED, this 7th day of July, 2023.