TAITE v. CREWS, 3:12cv127/MCR/EMT. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140717939
Filed: Jul. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated May 6, 2014 (doc. 70). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The Court previously granted Petitioner's Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Objections through June 15. That time has passed.
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated May 6, 2014 (doc. 70). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The Court previously granted Petitioner's Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Objections through June 15. That time has passed. P..
More
ORDER
M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated May 6, 2014 (doc. 70). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The Court previously granted Petitioner's Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Objections through June 15. That time has passed. Petitioner filed his objections untimely on June 18, 2014 (doc. 74).
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.1
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) is DENIED.
3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. Even considering the untimely filed objections, the Court's ruling would be the same.
Source: Leagle
