Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. v. TRAEGER

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division


July 20, 2004.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW TRAEGER, Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

After the issuance of this Court's July 8, 2004 memorandum opinion and order denying the 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 motion that had been filed pro se by Andrew Traeger ("Traeger"), this Court received another pro se communication from Traeger that he has labeled as his Reply to the Government's Response to his motion. Traeger has concluded that most recent filing with a request for an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of counsel.

As the July 8 opinion reflected, the government's response to Traeger's motion demonstrated why no evidentiary hearing was required. And that being so, Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Court allowed the summary dismissal ordered by this Court. Traeger's current filing does not call for a different result.

  It is true that Dr. Thomas Hare, whose affidavit this Court credited for purposes of its ruling, provided personal care to Traeger only during the more recent portions of his stay at the Springfield, Missouri Medical Center. But as to the earlier portion of Traeger's confinement that had not been observed personally by Dr. Hare, the uncontroverted medical records from the institution also negated Traeger's claimed incompetence that assertedly precluded his timely preparation of a Section 2255 motion. In sum, nothing in Traeger's current filing calls for the rethinking of this Court's July ruling.

  Accordingly the July 8 memorandum opinion and order stands. Traeger's most recent motion, which effectively seeks a reconsideration of that opinion, is denied in its entirety.

20040720

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.