HARRIS v. RYAN, CV-14-01741-PHX-PGR (MHB). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20151215818
Visitors: 21
Filed: Dec. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER PAUL G. ROSENBLATT , District Judge . Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burns notwithstanding that no party has filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner's habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, should be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred inasmuch as it was filed over two years after the expiration of the one-year statute of limi
Summary: ORDER PAUL G. ROSENBLATT , District Judge . Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burns notwithstanding that no party has filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner's habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, should be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred inasmuch as it was filed over two years after the expiration of the one-year statute of limit..
More
ORDER
PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, District Judge.
Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burns notwithstanding that no party has filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner's habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred inasmuch as it was filed over two years after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations of the AEDPA and the petitioner has made no showing that the limitations period should be equitably tolled. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied as time-barred and is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because dismissal of the habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
Source: Leagle
