Feisheng Liang v. United States of America

E.D. Texas

Feisheng Liang v. United States of America

DecidedDecember 1, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-00587

StatusUnknown

This text of Feisheng Liang v. United States of America (Feisheng Liang v. United States of America) 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

Feisheng Liang v. United States of America, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION FEISHENG LIANG, #26867-078 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-cv-587 § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:17-cr-1(1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 17, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #10) that the government’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #7) be granted, that the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. #1) be denied, and that the matter be dismissed with prejudice. Movant filed Objections (Dkt. #12) to the Report. In the Objections, Movant reurges the arguments he made in his memorandum brief and disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions. The Court has reviewed the tendered objections, and they generally add nothing new to Movant’s prior contentions in this case. Furthermore, conclusory or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.”). Despite his arguments, Movant fails to show that the Report is in error or that he is entitled to relief. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Objections and is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and that the Objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Objections (Dkt. #12)

are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that the government’s motion to dismiss ( Dkt. #7) is GRANTED, that the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Dkt. #1) is DENIED, and that the matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby

DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION FEISHENG LIANG, #26867-078 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-cv-587 § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:17-cr-1(1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 17, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #10) that the government’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #7) be granted, that the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. #1) be denied, and that the matter be dismissed with prejudice. Movant filed Objections (Dkt. #12) to the Report. In the Objections, Movant reurges the arguments he made in his memorandum brief and disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions. The Court has reviewed the tendered objections, and they generally add nothing new to Movant’s prior contentions in this case. Furthermore, conclusory or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.”). Despite his arguments, Movant fails to show that the Report is in error or that he is entitled to relief. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Objections and is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and that the Objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Objections (Dkt. #12)

are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that the government’s motion to dismiss ( Dkt. #7) is GRANTED, that the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Dkt. #1) is DENIED, and that the matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby

DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Feisheng Liang v. United States of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feisheng-liang-v-united-states-of-america-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack