Sams v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia
DecidedNovember 2, 2022
Docket4:22-cv-00068
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Sams v. United States, (S.D. Ga. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

AMARI SAMS,

Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:22-cv-68

v. (Formerly Case No. 4:19-cr-15)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

O RDER After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's May 4, 2022, Report and Recommendation, (doc. 2), to which Petitioner has filed an objection, (doc. 3). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Sams’ Motion be denied as untimely and that Sams’ asserted basis for equitable tolling of the limitations period be rejected. (Doc. 2.) Sams’ Objection reiterates that his filing of the instant motion was delayed by COVID-19 and security related restrictions at his former prison and his transfer from one prison to another. (Doc. 3, pp. 1-2.) However, he identifies no defect in the Magistrate Judge’s rejection of those same alleged circumstances as a basis for equitable tolling. (Doc. 2, pp. 5-6 (citing, inter alia., Gordon v. United States, 2021 WL 163629 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 18, 2022); Paulcin v. McDonough, 259 F. App’x 211, 213 (11th Cir. 2007)). The circumstances he alleges as the basis for his failure to timely submit his § 2255 motion are not “extraordinary circumstances” warranting equitable tolling. As the Magistrate Judge concluded, therefore, his Motion is untimely. Sams’ Objections are OVERRULED, (doc. 3), and the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as its opinion, (doc. 2.). For the reasons discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Sams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, (doc. 1), is DENIED. There are no discernable issues worthy of a certificate of appeal. Therefore, the Court DENIES the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability. Sams is advised that he “may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.” Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts. Furthermore, as there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court likewise DENIES Sams in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of November, 2022. f S ~ Lye R.STANBAKER s—‘i—sCS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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

Related

Prophet Paulcin v. James R. McDonough
259 F. App'x 211 (Eleventh Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sams v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sams-v-united-states-gasd-2022.