DYAR v. SECRETARY, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 1:13-cv-00173-MP-GRJ. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150323804
Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER MAURICE M. PAUL , Senior District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated December 31, 2014. (Doc. 15). 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). Petitioner has filed objections at Doc. 18. I have made a de novo review based on those objections. The Magistrate Judge recomm
Summary: ORDER MAURICE M. PAUL , Senior District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated December 31, 2014. (Doc. 15). 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). Petitioner has filed objections at Doc. 18. I have made a de novo review based on those objections. The Magistrate Judge recomme..
More
ORDER
MAURICE M. PAUL, Senior District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated December 31, 2014. (Doc. 15). 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). Petitioner has filed objections at Doc. 18. I have made a de novo review based on those objections.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Respondent's motion to dismiss (doc. 12), which would dismiss as time-barred the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling as he has failed to show that the untimeliness of his petition was "because of extraordinary circumstances that [were] both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence." Johnson v. United States, 340 F.3d 1219, 1226 (11th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 15) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred (doc. 12) is GRANTED.
3. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 7), is DISMISSED as untimely.
4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
