Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

93-055 - USA v. Creeden et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
93-055 - USA v. Creeden et al
January 3, 2017
PDF | More
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION as to Michael Lee Millis: That Def's §2255 motion 234 be DISMISSED because it is a second successive §2255 motion that is not authorized by the Sixth Circuit. The Court directs the parties to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) for appeal rights and mechanics concerning this Recommended Disposition, issued under subsection (B) of the statute. W/in 14 days after being served with a copy of this decision, any party may serve and file specific written objections to any or all findings or recommendations for determination, de novo, by the District Court. Failure to make a timely objection consistent with the statute and rule may, and normally will, result in waiver of future appeal to or review by the District Court and Court of Appeals. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram on 1/3/2017. (ECO)cc: COR,USM,USP/with copy mailed to Michael Lee Mills, pro se Def, at address listed on the docket sheet.
February 16, 2017
PDF | More
JUDGMENT: 1) That the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 244 is adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court; 2) That Defendant's motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 234 is DISMISSED because it is a second successive § 2255 motion not authorized by the Sixth Circuit. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 2/16/2017. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 2/16/2017. (ECO)cc: COR,USM,USP Civil Case 2:16-cv-00118-WOB-HAI closed.