Summary
noting that "[f]or purposes of AEDPA's successive-motion rules, the dismissal of an initial § 2255 motion as untimely 'counts' and renders a subsequent § 2255 motion 'successive' "
Summary of this case from United States v. BigginsOpinion
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-0655-MEF
03-19-2013
ALDRIC HARRIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
After an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that:
(1) The petitioner's Objection to the Magistrate Judge Recommendation (Doc. #16) filed on March 1, 2013 is overruled;
(2) The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. #15) entered on February 13, 2013 is adopted;
(3) The § 2255 motion is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED, as Harris has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals authorizing this court to consider a successive § 2255 motion.
Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE