PEREZ v. STEWART, 3:15-cv-00719-AKK-TMP. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20151203990
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION ABDUL K. KALLON , District Judge . The magistrate judge filed his Report and Recommendation, doc. 9, in the above-styled cause on November 6, 2015, recommending that the 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutional validity of Petitioner's conviction be denied and dismissed with prejudice because the petition is time barred. Id. As the magistrate judge noted, "[t]he petitioner was sentenced on August 3, 201[2]. His sentence became final on
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION ABDUL K. KALLON , District Judge . The magistrate judge filed his Report and Recommendation, doc. 9, in the above-styled cause on November 6, 2015, recommending that the 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutional validity of Petitioner's conviction be denied and dismissed with prejudice because the petition is time barred. Id. As the magistrate judge noted, "[t]he petitioner was sentenced on August 3, 201[2]. His sentence became final on S..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ABDUL K. KALLON, District Judge.
The magistrate judge filed his Report and Recommendation, doc. 9, in the above-styled cause on November 6, 2015, recommending that the §2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutional validity of Petitioner's conviction be denied and dismissed with prejudice because the petition is time barred. Id. As the magistrate judge noted, "[t]he petitioner was sentenced on August 3, 201[2]. His sentence became final on September 14, 2012, when his time to file for appellate review expired. Accordingly, the petitioner had until September 14, 2013, to timely file his peititon for habeas corpus pursuant to §2254." Doc. 9 at 5. Petitioner filed his peition instead on "April 16, 2015, more than a year and a half after the limitations period had run." Id. At 6.
Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all materials in the court file relevant to the case, including the petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation, the court finds that the report is due to be ADOPTED and the recommendation ACCEPTED. A corresponding order shall be entered contemporaneously herewith.
Source: Leagle
