Collinsworth v. United States

E.D. Texas

Collinsworth v. United States

DecidedMarch 23, 2021

Docket4:18-cv-00083

StatusUnknown

This text of Collinsworth v. United States (Collinsworth v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collinsworth v. United States, (E.D. Tex. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION SCOTT ALAN COLLINSWORTH, 20295-078§ § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18cv83 § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:12cr181(19) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § ORDER OF DISMISSAL The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson, who issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence should be denied as time-barred, and the case be dismissed with prejudice. Movant filed objections. In his objections, Movant merely reasserts the claims raised in his § 2255 motion and generally complains that the Court did not address the substance of his issues. When a movant is procedurally barred, as in this case, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the issues raised. Barrientos v. United States, 668 F.2d 838, 842 (5th Cir. 1982). Movant fails to show he is entitled to relief or that the Report and Recommendation was in error. Having conducted a de novo review of Movant’s objections, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and adopts the same as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is DENIED and Movant’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. It is also ORDERED that all motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION SCOTT ALAN COLLINSWORTH, 20295-078§ § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18cv83 § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:12cr181(19) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § ORDER OF DISMISSAL The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson, who issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence should be denied as time-barred, and the case be dismissed with prejudice. Movant filed objections. In his objections, Movant merely reasserts the claims raised in his § 2255 motion and generally complains that the Court did not address the substance of his issues. When a movant is procedurally barred, as in this case, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the issues raised. Barrientos v. United States, 668 F.2d 838, 842 (5th Cir. 1982). Movant fails to show he is entitled to relief or that the Report and Recommendation was in error. Having conducted a de novo review of Movant’s objections, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and adopts the same as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is DENIED and Movant’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. It is also ORDERED that all motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Collinsworth v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collinsworth-v-united-states-txed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack