WATKINS v. HOBBS, 5:11cv00217 JMM-JTR. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120201723
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 31, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections. Plaintiff requested additional time to file an exhibit which the Court granted on December 28, 2011. Although the Court has waited thirty (30) days, Plaintiff has failed to file the exhibit. After carefully considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Cour
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections. Plaintiff requested additional time to file an exhibit which the Court granted on December 28, 2011. Although the Court has waited thirty (30) days, Plaintiff has failed to file the exhibit. After carefully considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court..
More
ORDER
JAMES M. MOODY, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections. Plaintiff requested additional time to file an exhibit which the Court granted on December 28, 2011. Although the Court has waited thirty (30) days, Plaintiff has failed to file the exhibit.
After carefully considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (docket entry #2) is denied, and this case is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a Certificate of Appealability is denied pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Source: Leagle
