Carlisle v. United States of America, No. 2:2009cv00533 - Document 184 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER: Accepting 181 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; denying 176 MOTION by Darius Quinard Carlisle for Relief from Judgment and Order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b); directing Clerk to remove this action from the active docket of the court. Cross Reference Criminal Case Number 2:04-00096-01. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 11/12/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON DARIUS QUINARD CARLISLE, Movant, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-0533 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:04-0096-01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is movant s document entitled Relief from Judgment and Order Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b). (Doc. No. 176.) By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on May 13, 2009, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Standing Order directs Magistrate Judge Stanley to submit proposed findings and recommendation concerning the disposition of this matter. Magistrate Judge Stanley submitted her Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF & R ) on July 24, 2009, recommending that this court find that movant s filing should be considered as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which should be dismissed for failure to comply with the gate-keeping procedure set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3). (Doc. No. 181.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted ten days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Stanley s PF & R. Under § 636(b), the failure of any party to file objections within the appropriate time frame constitutes a waiver of that party s right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Neither party has submitted objections to the PF & R, and the time period for doing so has now elapsed. Having reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Doc. No. 181) filed by Magistrate Judge Stanley, the court (1) CONFIRMS and ACCEPTS the factual and legal analysis set forth therein; (2) FINDS that movant s filing constitutes a successive § 2255 motion in that it directly attacks his sentence; (3) FINDS that this court lacks authority to waive or eliminate the gatekeeping procedure set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3), which is the domain of the courts of appeals; (4) FINDS that there was no procedural defect in movant s initial proceeding under § 2255 (see Doc. No. 152), and that movant is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (5) DENIES movant s motion for Relief from Judgment and Order Under Rule 60(b) (Doc. No. 176); and (6) DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the active docket of the court and to forward copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and movant, pro se. It is SO ORDERED this 12th day of November, 2009. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
