JOSEPH v. TUCKER, 4:10cv377-SPM/WCS. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120314938
Visitors: 19
Filed: Mar. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2012
Summary: ORDER STEPHAN P. MICKLE, Senior District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Petitioner's objection (doc. 22) to the report and recommendation, which the Court will accept as timely filed under the prison mail box rule. Because the Court has already issued an order adopting the report and recommendation and judgment has been entered accordingly, that order and judgment (docs. 20 and 21) will be vacated and replaced with this order and the judgment that will follow. Having considered
Summary: ORDER STEPHAN P. MICKLE, Senior District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Petitioner's objection (doc. 22) to the report and recommendation, which the Court will accept as timely filed under the prison mail box rule. Because the Court has already issued an order adopting the report and recommendation and judgment has been entered accordingly, that order and judgment (docs. 20 and 21) will be vacated and replaced with this order and the judgment that will follow. Having considered t..
More
ORDER
STEPHAN P. MICKLE, Senior District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Petitioner's objection (doc. 22) to the report and recommendation, which the Court will accept as timely filed under the prison mail box rule. Because the Court has already issued an order adopting the report and recommendation and judgment has been entered accordingly, that order and judgment (docs. 20 and 21) will be vacated and replaced with this order and the judgment that will follow.
Having considered the objections as well as the report and recommendation, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted. Petitioner has not demonstrated due diligence regarding his discovery of information about the gun. Furthermore, Petitioner does not dispute that his petition was filed more than one year after he received the letter from the FDLE with the documents to support his claim.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The previous order and judgment (docs. 20 and 21) are vacated.
2. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 17) is ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.
3. The 2254 habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice as untimely.
4. The Court denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Source: Leagle
