WRIGHT v. JONES, 5:15cv79/RV/EMT. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20160419a51
Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2016
Summary: ORDER ROGER VINSON , Senior District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 29, 2016 (ECF No. 20). 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). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections (doc. 21). Having considered the Report and Recommendati
Summary: ORDER ROGER VINSON , Senior District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 29, 2016 (ECF No. 20). 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). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections (doc. 21). Having considered the Report and Recommendatio..
More
ORDER
ROGER VINSON, Senior District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 29, 2016 (ECF No. 20). 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). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections (doc. 21).
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections thereto, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The chief magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED.
3. The habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.
4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
