United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division
October 14, 2014
RICHARD EDWARD TRICE Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant.
W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff filed on August 7, 2014. (Doc. 125.) On March 20, 2014, Petitioner Richard Edward Trice filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment seeking to void his "sentence and conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(B)(6)." (Doc. 123.) Judge Langstaff recommends denying Petitioner's Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(B)(6) Motion since Petitioner failed to obtain proper authorization prior to filing successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the fourteen-day objection period expired August 21, 2014. Petitioner did not file his objection until August 25, 2014, four days after 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). (Doc. 127.) Petitioner gave no explanation for why his objection was untimely. Nevertheless, the Court considers Petitioner's objection in the interest of justice.
Petitioner's objection does not address the legal merits relied upon in Judge Langstaff's August 7, 2014 Recommendation. Judge Langstaff is correct that before presenting a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, a moving party must first obtain an order of authorization from the appropriate court of appeals. See Farris v. United States , 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003); Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11th Cir. 1997). Petitioner has not obtained proper authorization. Rather than offering evidence or arguments to the contrary, Petitioner merely glosses over Judge Langstaff's basis for denying his recommendation and concludes Farris and Hill do not apply in "merit or substance". (Doc. 127 at 5.) Having reviewed the Record de novo , the Court agrees with Judge Langstaff's assessment that there is no evidence showing Petitioner received proper authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
Therefore, upon full review and consideration of the record, the Court finds that said Recommendation (Doc. 125) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED. (Doc 123.)