Taylor v. United States of America, No. 2:2009cv00079 - Document 110 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as to Timothy Lee Taylor, Jr.; adopting Magistrate Judge Stanley's 105 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; denying movant's 94 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255); denying a certificate of appealability in this case. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 1/22/2010. (cc: Judge, USA, counsel, movant) (mkw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION TIMOTHY L. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-00079 (Criminal No. 2:06-cr-00232) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is the petitioner s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence [Docket 94]. This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and recommended that the court deny the petitioner s § 2555 motion. The petitioner timely filed written objections to the Magistrate Judge s findings of fact and recommendation. Having reviewed those objections, the court concludes that they lack merit. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Magistrate Judge s proposed findings of fact and DENY Taylor s motion. Furthermore, Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Cases provides that the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. The petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and the court denies a certificate of appealability in this case. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: -2- January 22, 2010

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.