Filed: May 31, 2012
Latest Update: May 31, 2012
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 16, 2012 (doc. 50). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The court has made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections ( see doc. 57). Having considered the Report and Recommendat
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 16, 2012 (doc. 50). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The court has made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections ( see doc. 57). Having considered the Report and Recommendati..
More
ORDER
M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 16, 2012 (doc. 50). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The court has made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections (see doc. 57). Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the objections, the court has determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Additionally, the court finds that the subsequently filed motion to dismiss quo warranto and motions for discovery are due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (doc. 34) is GRANTED.
3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 5) is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.
4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
5. The Motion to Dismiss Quo Warranto (doc. 58) is DENIED.
6. The Motion for Discovery (doc. 59) is DENIED.
7. The Motion for Discovery (doc. 60) is DENIED.
