Montilla v. United States

E.D. Texas

Montilla v. United States

DecidedSeptember 30, 2025

Docket6:23-cv-00255

StatusUnknown

This text of Montilla v. United States (Montilla 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

Montilla v. United States, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00255 Sanderson Antonio Montilla, Movant, V. United States of America, Respondent.

ORDER Movant, proceeding pro se, filed this case and a motion to va- cate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Doc. 1. The case was re- ferred to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that that motion be denied and that movant be de- nied a certificate of appealability. Doc. 10 at 12. A copy of the report and recommendation was twice sent to movant at the address listed on the docket. The second mailing was returned as undeliverable. Doc. 11. Months later, movant sub- mitted a letter asking for a status update. Doc. 12. Movant also provided a new address but said he “might not be at this address soon.” Id. at 1. Under Local Rule CV-11(d), a pro se litigant is “responsible for keeping the clerk advised in writing of his or her current phys- ical address.” And under the mailbox rule, proof that a letter was properly placed in the U.S. mail “creates a presumption” that the mail reached its destination in the usual time and was received by the person it was addressed to. See Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2019). To date, movant has not filed objections or otherwise re- sponded to the report. When no party timely objects to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory commit- tee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satisfied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the

-l-

report’s findings and recommendations. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (Doc. 1) is denied. Movant is denied a certificate of appealability. This case is dismissed without preju- dice. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on September 30, 2025. _faackek BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00255 Sanderson Antonio Montilla, Movant, V. United States of America, Respondent.

ORDER Movant, proceeding pro se, filed this case and a motion to va- cate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Doc. 1. The case was re- ferred to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that that motion be denied and that movant be de- nied a certificate of appealability. Doc. 10 at 12. A copy of the report and recommendation was twice sent to movant at the address listed on the docket. The second mailing was returned as undeliverable. Doc. 11. Months later, movant sub- mitted a letter asking for a status update. Doc. 12. Movant also provided a new address but said he “might not be at this address soon.” Id. at 1. Under Local Rule CV-11(d), a pro se litigant is “responsible for keeping the clerk advised in writing of his or her current phys- ical address.” And under the mailbox rule, proof that a letter was properly placed in the U.S. mail “creates a presumption” that the mail reached its destination in the usual time and was received by the person it was addressed to. See Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2019). To date, movant has not filed objections or otherwise re- sponded to the report. When no party timely objects to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory commit- tee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satisfied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the

-l-

report’s findings and recommendations. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (Doc. 1) is denied. Movant is denied a certificate of appealability. This case is dismissed without preju- dice. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on September 30, 2025. _faackek BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Montilla v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montilla-v-united-states-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack