ROBERT HINKLE, District Judge
This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (document 109), to which no objections have been filed. The report and recommendation correctly concludes that defendant's attacks on his conviction and sentence, as before the court when the report and recommendation was entered, were in substance second or successive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that could not be pursued absent authorization by the court of appeals. Since entry of the report and recommendation, defendant has filed yet another attack on his conviction and sentence; it, too, is in substance a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The report and recommendation (document 109) is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion of the court.
2. Defendant's motion to strike (document 107) is treated as a motion for leave to amend defendant's (second) motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (document 106). The motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.
3. Defendant's (second) motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed September 9, 2005 (document 106) and amended motion filed September 22, 2005 (document 108) are DENIED for failure to obtain authorization from the court of appeals.
4. Defendant's (third) motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed November 21, 2005 (document 110) is DENIED for failure to obtain authorization from the court of appeals.
5. The clerk shall enter judgment stating, "Defendant's motions for relief from his conviction and sentence (documents 106, 108, and 110), which are in substance second or successive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, are DENIED for failure to obtain authorization from the court of appeals." The clerk shall close the file.
SO ORDERED.