CRAWFORD v. RYAN, CV-13-00531-PHX-PGR (MEA). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20150513711
Visitors: 17
Filed: May 11, 2015
Latest Update: May 11, 2015
Summary: ORDER PAUL G. ROSENBLATT , District Judge . Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aspey notwithstanding that no party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition, originally filed on March 13, 2013 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, should be dismissed as time-barred because this action was commenced more than five years after the AEDPA'
Summary: ORDER PAUL G. ROSENBLATT , District Judge . Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aspey notwithstanding that no party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition, originally filed on March 13, 2013 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, should be dismissed as time-barred because this action was commenced more than five years after the AEDPA's..
More
ORDER
PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, District Judge.
Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aspey notwithstanding that no party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition, originally filed on March 13, 2013 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed as time-barred because this action was commenced more than five years after the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations expired in mid-2007, and the petitioner has made no showing that the limitations period should be equitably tolled. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.13) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner Mark D. Crawford's [Second Amended] Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 6) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because jurists of reason would neither find it debatable whether the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
Source: Leagle
