Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order — United States v. Arthur Antonio Johnson (N.D. Ga., Dkt. 77, February 28, 2024)

Order — United States v. Arthur Antonio Johnson (N.D. Ga., Dkt. 77, February 28, 2024)

Summary

An Order in United States of America v. Arthur Antonio Johnson (1), Criminal Action No. 1:21-cr-0044-AT-RGV-1 and Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-3924-AT-RGV, Document 77, filed February 28, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The Order addresses the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 75) that the Court grant the §2255 motion only as to the claim that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal. It notes that no objections have been filed, states that the Court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and finds none, and receives the Report and Recommendation with approval.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Order — United States v. Arthur Antonio Johnson (N.D. Ga., Dkt. 77, February 28, 2024).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-1-21-cr-00044-dkt-77-n-d-ga-b50c023a2d/, SHA-256 ed0bb06616e6a1754800a3f25f46021f147204966f15f9197459286bc3c69387.

Full text

      Case 1:21-cr-00044-AT-RGV Document 77 Filed 02/28/24 Page 1 of 2


                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
                         ATLANTA DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,             :
                                      :
                v.                    :          CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

ARTHUR ANTONIO                        :          1:21-cr-0044-AT-RGV-1
JOHNSON (1),                          :
                                                 CIVIL ACTION NO.

                                                 1:23-cv-3924-AT-RGV
                                   ORDER


      Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation that this Court grant Defendants’ §2255 motion only as to his

claim that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal. [Doc. 75]

      A district judge has broad discretion to accept, reject, or modify a

magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. United States v.

Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 680 (1980). The Court notes that no objections have been

filed in response to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 59 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's

Recommendation for clear error and finds none.

      Accordingly, the Court receives the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation with approval and hereby ADOPTS the Report and
Case 1:21-cr-00044-AT-RGV Document 77 Filed 02/28/24 Page 2 of 2

File and source

File
77.pdf
Size
268,900 bytes
SHA-256
ed0bb06616e6a1754800a3f25f46021f147204966f15f9197459286bc3c69387
Our copy
77.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top