United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Linda T.
Walker's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court
deny Movant Timothy Hunt's (“Movant”) 28
U.S.C. § 2255 Motion  (“Section 2255
Motion”). Also before the Court is Movant's Motion
to Amend his Section 2255 Motion .
2012, Movant pled guilty, pursuant to a negotiated plea
agreement, to distributing child pornography. (, [22.1]).
On May 13, 2013, the Court sentenced Movant to ten years'
imprisonment and twenty years' supervised release.
(). Movant did not file an appeal. ( at 2, 4).
November 15, 2016, Movant, pro se, filed his Section
2255 Motion. Movant asserts one ground for relief: he argues
that his sentence should be reduced pursuant to a clarifying
amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (the
“Guidelines”) that became effective on November
1, 2016. (Mot. at 4). The amendment was to Guidelines §
2G2.2(b)(3)(B), which enhances the imprisonment range
calculated under the Guidelines for distribution of child
pornography for means other than pecuniary gain.
December 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R.
The Magistrate Judge found that Movant is not entitled to
relief under Section 2255 because (1) his Motion is untimely,
and (2) the Motion is barred by the appeal waiver in his plea
agreement. Movant did not file any objections to the R&R.
December 15, 2016, Movant filed his Motion to Amend. In it,
he seeks a thirty (30) day extension to file an amendment to
his Section 2255 Motion. Movant did not state a reason for
his request to amend. To date, Movant has not filed a
proposed amendment to his Section 2255 Motion.
conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or
modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681
F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A district judge
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Where, as here, no party has objected to
the report and recommendation, the Court conducts only a
plain error review of the record. United States v.
Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
Magistrate Judge found that Movant is not entitled to relief
under Section 2255 because (1) his Motion is untimely, and
(2) the Motion is barred by the appeal waiver in his plea
agreement. A Section 2255 motion generally must be filed
within one year of the date the judgment of conviction
becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). The Magistrate
Judge noted that Movant's judgment of conviction became
final in May 2013, because that was the deadline to file an
appeal of the judgment and Movant did not file an appeal.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (requiring notice of
appeal to be filed within fourteen days of entry of
judgment). The Magistrate Judge determined that Movant filed
his Section 2255 Motion over three years after his judgment
of conviction became final, and it is thus
untimely. The Court finds no plain error in these
findings and recommendation. See Slay, 714 F.2d at
Magistrate Judge found that, even if Movant had timely filed
his Section 2255 Motion, Movant voluntarily and expressly
waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence and to
collaterally attack his conviction and sentence in any
post-conviction proceeding, including through a motion under
Section 2255. The Magistrate Judge found that Movant's
appeal waiver bars his Section 2255 Motion. Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss Movant's
Section 2255 Motion, and that a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) be denied because Movant has not made a
substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional
right. The Court finds no plain error in these findings and
recommendation, and Movant's Section 2255 Motion is
dismissed and a COA is denied. See Slay, 714 F.2d at
Motion to Amend, Movant sought a thirty (30) day extension to
file an amendment to his Section 2255. More than thirty days
have passed, and Movant has not filed any amendments. Movant
also does not identify what amendments he seeks to make to
his Section 2255 Motion. It does not appear any amendment