Young v. United States of America, No. 2:2009cv01554 - Document 69 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as to Joseph Paul Young; adopting and incorporating the 67 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; and denying movant's 54 Section 2255 motion. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 12/27/2010. (cc: movant; attys; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Young v. United States of America Doc. 69 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON JOSEPH PAUL YOUNG, Movant v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-1554 (Criminal No. 2:08-00226) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed December 30, 2009. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to the court of her proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Movant is presently serving a 240-month term of imprisonment following his guilty plea to a bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). 24, 2009. The Judgment was entered June Movant timely noticed a direct appeal, which was voluntarily dismissed by him, with the assistance of counsel, effective August 17, 2009. He now seeks relief pursuant to section 2255. Dockets.Justia.com On November 9, 2010, the magistrate judge entered her proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”). She recommends that this action be dismissed inasmuch as movant has not shown that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. November 29, 2010, movant objected. On The objections, however, do not offer any basis for departing from the recommendation made by the magistrate judge. In summary, movant has failed to demonstrate either that his counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable or that such performance resulted in prejudice to him. Based upon a de novo review, and having found the objections meritless, the court adopts and incorporates herein the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation. It is ORDERED that movant’s section 2255 motion be, and it hereby is, denied. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to the movant, all counsel of record, and the United States Magistrate Judge. DATED: December 27, 2010 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. 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.
