United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DLTFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge John K.
Larkins III's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court
dismiss Movant Raphael Rainey's (“Movant”)
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255  (“Section 2255
Motion”). Also before the Court are Movant's
Objections to the R&R  and his Motion for Leave to
Appeal in Forma Pauperis .
August 4, 2014, Movant pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to
commit robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); and
(2) robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and
1951(a). (, ). On October 15, 2014, the Court
sentenced Movant to eighty-five months of imprisonment
followed by three years of supervised release. (, ).
Movant did not appeal. ().
27, 2016, Movant filed his Section 2255 Motion, arguing that
he is entitled to relief under the Supreme Court's
opinion in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551
(2015). Movant failed to sign the Section 2255 Motion.
21, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued his R&R. The
Magistrate Judge found that Movant's Section 2255 Motion
is untimely, and that equitable tolling is not appropriate.
The Magistrate Judge noted that the Court already determined
that Movant is not entitled to relief under Johnson.
He recommends that the Court deny Movant's Section 2255
Motion, and that the Court deny a certificate of
August 8, 2016, Movant filed his Objections. The only
discernible objection to the R&R is that the Magistrate
Judge made “a fraudulent statement” in noting
that Movant pleaded guilty. (Obj. at 2). Movant argues that
his guilty plea was “unknowing and involuntary”
and he appears to raise the issue of ineffective assistance
of counsel. (Id.). Movant does not appear to
challenge the Magistrate Judge's determination that his
Section 2255 Motion is untimely.
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 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).
only discernible objection to the R&R is that the
Magistrate Judge made “a fraudulent statement” in
noting that Movant pleaded guilty. (Obj. at 2). This
objection is plainly without merit, because the record shows
that, on August 4, 2014, the Court accepted Movant's
guilty plea. (). Though Movant argues his guilty plea is
invalid, Movant does not contest the Magistrate Judge's
determination that his Section 2255 Motion is untimely.
Accordingly, the Court conducts its plain error review of the
Section 2255 motion is subject to the one-year statute of
limitations provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The
one-year period runs from the latest of the dates on which
(1) Movant's convictions became final; (2) a State
impediment to filing a motion to vacate was removed; (3) a
constitutional right on which Movant relies was recognized by
the United States Supreme Court, if the right has been newly
recognized and made retroactively applicable to cases on
collateral review; or (4) Movant, with due diligence, could
have discovered the facts supporting his claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)-(4).
was sentenced on October 15, 2014, and he had fourteen days,
until October 29, 2014, within which to file his appeal.
Because Movant did not appeal, his convictions became final
on October 29, 2014, and he had one year, until October 29,
2015, to file his Section 2255 Motion. The Magistrate Judge
found that Movant's Section 2255 Motion, filed on June
27, 2016, is ...