IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT VAUGHAN Reg. #46688-424 PETITIONER

No. 2:19-cv-46-DPM

DEWAYNE HENDRIX, Warden, FCI-Low, Forrest City RESPONDENT

ORDER On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ray’s recommendation, Ne 9, as supplemented and overrules Vaughan’s objections, Ne 10. FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(3). The supplement: Vaughan’s embedded motion to amend his petition, Ne 10, is denied because the amendment would be futile. The additional material goes to the lawfulness of Vaughan’s conviction and sentence, not the execution of the sentence. It must therefore be raised through a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court unless Vaughan shows that the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective in his case. Abdullah v. Hedrick,

(8th Cir. 2004). He hasn't cleared that high bar. United States v. Lurie,

(8th Cir. 2000).

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Vaughan’s habeas claims. The motion to dismiss, Ne 3, is therefore granted. Vaughan’s § 2241 petition will be dismissed without prejudice. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall United States District Judge (3 Seofembin 2.019

Se