GORDON v. MEDIEROS, 14-13552-RGS. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20150728997
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 27, 2015
Summary: ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD G. STEARNS , District Judge . I agree with Magistrate Judge Dein's determination that the petition is untimely under the one-year limitations period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). 1 I further agree that there is no basis for invoking the doctrine of equitable tolling in light of petitioner's lack of diligence and failure to show any extraordinary circumstance. 2 Consequently, the Recommendation is ADOPTED and the p
Summary: ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD G. STEARNS , District Judge . I agree with Magistrate Judge Dein's determination that the petition is untimely under the one-year limitations period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). 1 I further agree that there is no basis for invoking the doctrine of equitable tolling in light of petitioner's lack of diligence and failure to show any extraordinary circumstance. 2 Consequently, the Recommendation is ADOPTED and the pe..
More
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RICHARD G. STEARNS, District Judge.
I agree with Magistrate Judge Dein's determination that the petition is untimely under the one-year limitations period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1).1 I further agree that there is no basis for invoking the doctrine of equitable tolling in light of petitioner's lack of diligence and failure to show any extraordinary circumstance.2 Consequently, the Recommendation is ADOPTED and the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. Any request for the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 is DENIED, the court seeing no meritorious or substantial basis supporting an appeal. The Clerk is instructed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. As the Report notes, the judgment in petitioner's state case became final on September 8, 1996. The three belated motions for a new trial filed in the interval before the filing of this petition on August 29, 2014, do not excuse the untimely filing (or come even close to doing so).
2. Petitioner's reliance on Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010), is misplaced for the reasons explained by the Magistrate Judge.
Source: Leagle
