Opinion
2:12-cr-00135-JAW
10-24-2022
HASAN WORTHY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION AND DENYING MOTION TO AMEND
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
A federal inmate petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the petition because it is barred as a second or successive petition. The Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's recommended decision over the petitioner's objection because the petitioner's petition is a second or successive petition and therefore barred.
In addition, after the Magistrate Judge issued his recommended decision, the petitioner moved to amend his petition. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion to amend and the petitioner objected to the denial. The Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's order because the motion to amend is untimely and futile.
I. The Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on August 29, 2022, his Recommended Decision. Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Mot. (ECF No. 271). Mr. Worthy filed his objections to the Recommended Decision on September 19, 2022. Obj. to Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No. 273).
The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and the Court made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and the Court concurs with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and determines that no further proceeding is necessary. Specifically, the Court considered each of Mr. Worthy's three objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision and it has reviewed the contents of the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision. As the Magistrate Judge concluded, Mr. Worthy's current petition is a second or successive petition and is therefore barred. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge, in his current Recommended Decision and his prior January 15, 2020, Recommended Decision, Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Mot. (ECF No. 254), fully addressed each of Mr. Worthy's objections and, therefore, the Court finds no further judicial explanation is necessary or appropriate.
II. The Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Denial of the Petitioner's Motion to Amend
On the same day that he objected to the recommended decision, Mr. Worthy filed a motion to amend his petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. (ECF No. 273), Attach. 1, Proposed Amended § 2255 Mot. (Motion to Amend). The Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on September 30, 2022, his Order on Motion to Amend. Order Denying Mot. to Amend (ECF No. 274). Mr. Worthy filed his objections to the Order on Motion to Amend on October 18, 2022. Obj. to Order on Mot. to Amend (ECF No. 275).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) empowers a magistrate judge to “hear and decide” non-dispositive pre-trial matters; to set aside a magistrate judge's order on such matter, the Court must conclude that the order is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). A motion to amend a complaint is a “pretrial matter not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party within the purview of Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).” Pagano v. Frank, 983 F.2d 343, 346 (1st Cir. 1993) (internal quotations omitted); see also Pew v. Scopino, 904 F.Supp. 18, 34 (D. Me. 1995).
The Court, having reviewed Mr. Worthy's Motion to Amend, the Magistrate Judge's Order on Motion to Amend, and Mr. Worthy's objections, concludes that the Magistrate Judge's dismissal of the motion to amend is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Moreover, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Order on Motion to Amend fully addressed each of Mr. Worthy's objections and, therefore, the Court finds no further judicial explanation is necessary or appropriate. Accordingly, the dismissal of Mr. Worthy's motion is not in error.
III. Conclusion
1. It is ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 271) be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
2. It is further ORDERED that the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition (ECF No. 269) be and hereby is DISMISSED.
3. The Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Motion to Amend (ECF No. 274) and OVERRULES the Petitioner's Objection (ECF No. 275).
SO ORDERED.