Filed: Jul. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford, who entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") on June 5, 2018, recommending that the court dismiss with prejudice this habeas action as timebarred. The magistrate judge further determined that equitable tolling does not apply. No objections to the Report were filed. After carefully reviewing the pleadings, file, rec
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford, who entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") on June 5, 2018, recommending that the court dismiss with prejudice this habeas action as timebarred. The magistrate judge further determined that equitable tolling does not apply. No objections to the Report were filed. After carefully reviewing the pleadings, file, reco..
More
ORDER
SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge.
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford, who entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") on June 5, 2018, recommending that the court dismiss with prejudice this habeas action as timebarred. The magistrate judge further determined that equitable tolling does not apply. No objections to the Report were filed.
After carefully reviewing the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, and dismisses with prejudice this habeas action as time-barred.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability.* The court determines that Petitioner has failed to show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong;" or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge's report filed in this case. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so Ordered.
