Davidson v. Morgan, 15-cv-1445. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20180621781
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2018
Summary: JUDGMENT ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE , District Judge . For the reasons assigned in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and having thoroughly reviewed the record, including the written objections filed, and concurring with the findings of the Magistrate Judge under the applicable law; IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied as untimely. Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the U.S. District Co
Summary: JUDGMENT ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE , District Judge . For the reasons assigned in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and having thoroughly reviewed the record, including the written objections filed, and concurring with the findings of the Magistrate Judge under the applicable law; IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied as untimely. Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the U.S. District Cou..
More
JUDGMENT
ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE, District Judge.
For the reasons assigned in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and having thoroughly reviewed the record, including the written objections filed, and concurring with the findings of the Magistrate Judge under the applicable law;
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied as untimely.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the U.S. District Courts requires the district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. The court, after considering the record in this case and the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 2253, denies a certificate of appealability. Jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether this court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000).
Source: Leagle
