Carr v. United States

CHARLESTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 6:12-cr-00210 LLOYD B. CARR

ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Letter Form Motion for Equitable Tolling and Appointment of Counsel. [ECF No. 107]. Defendant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to modify, set aside, or vacate his sentence on July 27, 2018. [ECF No. 89]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered Proposed Findings and Recommendation recommending that the District Court deny Defendant’s Motion on September 3, 2020. [ECF No. 21]. Defendant filed a Motion requesting more time to file objections to the PF&R. [ECF No. 104]. I granted Defendant’s Motion, giving him until October 1, 2020, to file objections. [ECF No. 106]. Defendant filed the instant Motion on October 1, 2020. Defendant’s Motion does not address the PF&R other than asking for even more additional time to file objections. Because Defendant has already been given additional time to file objections to the PF&R, I DENY Defendant’s Motion for Equitable Tolling and Appointment of Counsel and find that no timely objections to the PF&R have been made.

A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court ADOPTS and INCORPORATES herein the PF&R [ECF No. 21] and ORDERS judgment consistent therewith. Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 107] is DENIED. The court DISMISSES without prejudice this matter from the docket.

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the defendant and counsel, the United States Attorney, the United States Probation Office, and the United States Marshal.

ENTER: October 19, 2020 Np oem STATES DISTRICT JUDGE