Opinion
CV419-336 CR416-357
03-06-2023
CHRISTOPHER ROBERT PREISS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's February 2, 2023, Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9), to which Petitioner has not filed objections. After a careful review of the record, the report and recommendation (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. As a result, Petitioner's Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED. (Doc. 1.) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is DISMISSED AS MOOT. (Doc. 6.)
Unless otherwise stated, all citations are to Petitioner's civil docket on this Court's electronic filing system, CV419-336.
The Court reviews de novo a magistrate judge's findings to which a party objects, and the Court reviews for clear error the portions of a report and recommendation to which a party does not object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Merchant v. Nationwide Recovery Serv., Inc., 440 F.Supp.3d 1369, 1371 (N.D.Ga. 2020) (outlining the standard of review for report and recommendations (citing Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam))).
Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards set forth in Brown v. United States, Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts ("The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant."). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED