Filed: Apr. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2017
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . On February 27, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), recommending that the court deny as untimely the habeas petition filed in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 and dismiss with prejudice the action. No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order. Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . On February 27, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), recommending that the court deny as untimely the habeas petition filed in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 and dismiss with prejudice the action. No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order. Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case,..
More
ORDER
SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge.
On February 27, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), recommending that the court deny as untimely the habeas petition filed in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismiss with prejudice the action. No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as untimely, and dismisses with prejudice this action.
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.1 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.
