United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, Pikeville
April 16, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
MANUEL JONES, Defendant.
KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the defendant's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (DE 431). Consistent with local practice, this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for consideration.
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on March 6, 2014 (DE 433). After review of the motion, the Magistrate Judge ordered the defendant to fully complete and file the standard § 2255 form and to further show cause as to why the motion should not be transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as a second or successive § 2255 motion. (DE 432). The defendant did not respond to the Magistrate Judge's order. Based on review of the record and applicable case law, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the defendant's motion be transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 due to the fact that it is a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Ordinarily, this Court would exercise de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made, s ee 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), but the defendant failed to file any such objections. Thus, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (DE 433) is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of this Court;
2. The defendant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is TRANSFERRED to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 for proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2244 and Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.