YOUNG v. TUCKER, 3:11cv251/MCR/EMT. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120509911
Visitors: 24
Filed: May 08, 2012
Latest Update: May 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 20, 2012 (doc. 25). 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). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 20, 2012 (doc. 25). 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). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections t..
More
ORDER
M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 20, 2012 (doc. 25). 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). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (doc. 15) is GRANTED.
3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.
4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
