Howard v. Minnesota, 19-cv-0059(JNE/HB). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20190829986
Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued on July 19, 2019 by United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Rico P. Howard filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 and the State of Minnesota moved to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitations established by 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1).The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny Petitioner's petition, grant the Respondent's mo
Summary: ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued on July 19, 2019 by United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Rico P. Howard filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 and the State of Minnesota moved to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitations established by 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1).The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny Petitioner's petition, grant the Respondent's mot..
More
ORDER
JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued on July 19, 2019 by United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Rico P. Howard filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the State of Minnesota moved to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitations established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny Petitioner's petition, grant the Respondent's motion to dismiss, and deny a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 17. No party filed objections to the R&R.
Based on a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's report and accepts the recommended disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 7] is GRANTED;
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1] is DENIED;
3. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
4. A certificate of appealability is not granted.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Source: Leagle
