Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08226/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08226-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry James George
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jerry James George, 

Defendant/Movant, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-05-00709-PCT-NVW

No. CV-09-08226-PCT-NVW (MEA)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s “Objections and Protest to the Order Issued on

January 20th 2011 Due to the Courts Abuse of Discretion of Overlooking Constitutional

Violations of 5th and 14th Due Process Rights of the Report and Recommendation” (Doc.

41) and “Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)

and Rule 60(b) to Redocket this Case for the Court to Respond to the Objections and

Reconsider the Newly Discovered Evidence and Perjured Testimony by Authorities and

Other Witnesses of this Case” (Doc. 42). Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey filed a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 (Doc. 1) on January 21, 2011 (Doc. 36). The R&R

notified the parties that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), they had fourteen days within

which to file objections to the R&R. Having received no objections after the fourteen days

expired, the Court issued its order accepting the R&R on February 9, 2011 (Doc. 39).

Case 3:09-cv-08226-NVW Document 45 Filed 03/10/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Defendant’s objection to the R&R (Doc. 41) is dated February 4, 2011; however, the

Court did not receive the objection until February 16, 2011. Although Defendant’s objection

thus appears to have been untimely filed, the Court has nonetheless considered it. However,

neither Defendant’s objections to the R&R (Doc. 41) or his arguments in his motion for

reconsideration (Doc. 42) are sufficiently meritorious to persuade the Court that the R&R

should not have been adopted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion for Reconsideration

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Rule 60(b) to Redocket this Case

for the Court to Respond to the Objections and Reconsider the Newly Discovered Evidence

and Perjured Testimony by Authorities and Other Witnesses of this Case” (Doc. 42) is

granted to the extent that the Court has considered Defendant’s objections and denied to the

extent it seeks that the Court’s February 9, 2011 Order be amended, altered, or vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s “Objections and Protest to the Order

Issued on January 20th 2011 Due to the Courts Abuse of Discretion of Overlooking

Constitutional Violations of 5th and 14th Due Process Rights of the Report and

Recommendation” (Doc. 41) is denied.

DATED this 10th day of March, 2011.

Case 3:09-cv-08226-NVW Document 45 Filed 03/10/11 Page 2 of 2