Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ROOD v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 3:16cv417/MCR/EMT. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. Florida Number: infdco20180103734 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS , Chief District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration on the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated November 13, 2017 (ECF No. 31). 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 has made a de novo determination of any filed objections. 1 Having considered the Report and Recommendation,
More

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration on the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated November 13, 2017 (ECF No. 31). 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 has made a de novo determination of any filed objections.1

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto filed, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

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. Respondent's amended motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED.

3. The amended habeas petition (ECF No. 11) is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.

4. Petitioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30) is DENIED.

5. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Petitioner timely requested a two-week extension of time, from December 2, 2017 until December 16, 2017, to file his objections to the Report and Recommendation, which the Court granted. ECF Nos. 32, 33. Petitioner, however, filed his objections on December 26, 2017, without any explanation for the late filing. ECF No. 34. The Court, nonetheless, considered the untimely objections.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer