Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00060/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00060-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

WENDALL JEFFERSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv60-MHT

) (WO) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On May 14, 2007 (Doc. no. 14), the magistrate judge

entered a recommendation that the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas

petition filed by petitioner Wendall Jefferson be denied

because his claims entitled him to no relief. There

being no objections filed to the recommendation, the

court entered an order adopting the recommendation on

June 5, 2007 (Doc. no. 15), and entered a final judgment

on the same day (Doc. no. 16).

On June 11, 2007 (Doc. no. 17), Jefferson filed a

pleading styled as a "Motion Under Rule 4(a)(6)(B).

Case 3:06-cv-00060-MHT-TFM Document 18 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 3
1. Although Jefferson’s motion was date-stamped

"received" in this court on June 13, 2007, the court

under the "mailbox rule" deems his motion filed on the

date he delivered it to prison authorities for mailing,

presumptively, June 11, 2007, the day that he signed it.

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988);

Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th

Cir. 2001).

Time.”1

 In this motion, Jefferson states that he never

received a copy of the magistrate judge's recommendation

and that, consequently, he was denied the opportunity to

file timely objections to the recommendation. Jefferson

states that he did not learn of the magistrate judge’s

recommendation until June 8, 2007, when he received a

copy of this court’s order dismissing his § 2255

petition. Accordingly, he requests that this court

“reopen the Order of Recommendation” so that he may file

objections to the recommendation. The court construes

Jefferson’s instant pleading to contain a motion for

extension of time to file objections to the

recommendation. 

Case 3:06-cv-00060-MHT-TFM Document 18 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 3
2. Rule 59(e) provides that “[a]ny motion to alter

or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days

after entry of the judgment.” 

In light of the foregoing, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), as follows:2

(1) Petitioner Wendall Jefferson’s motion for

extension of time (Doc. no. 17) is granted.

(2) The order and final judgment entered on June 5,

2007 (Doc. nos. 15 & 16), are vacated. 

(3) Petitioner Jefferson is allowed until July 9,

2007, to file his objections to the recommendation

entered on May 14, 2007 (Doc. no. 14).

(4) This case is referred back to the magistrate

judge for further proceedings.

DONE, this the 21st day of June, 2007. 

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-00060-MHT-TFM Document 18 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 3