Williams v. Schweitzer, 1:16-cv-2676. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190410763
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JEFFREY J. HELMICK , District Judge . On April 19, 2018, I dismissed as time-barred the 2254 habeas petition of Petitioner Patrick Williams. (Doc. Nos. 13& 14). I made this decision after considering the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg, (Doc. No. 10), along with Williams' objections to thereto, (Doc. No. 11), and Respondent's response to Williams' objections, (Doc. No. 12). Williams now moves for an extension of time to file objection
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JEFFREY J. HELMICK , District Judge . On April 19, 2018, I dismissed as time-barred the 2254 habeas petition of Petitioner Patrick Williams. (Doc. Nos. 13& 14). I made this decision after considering the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg, (Doc. No. 10), along with Williams' objections to thereto, (Doc. No. 11), and Respondent's response to Williams' objections, (Doc. No. 12). Williams now moves for an extension of time to file objections..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JEFFREY J. HELMICK, District Judge.
On April 19, 2018, I dismissed as time-barred the § 2254 habeas petition of Petitioner Patrick Williams. (Doc. Nos. 13& 14). I made this decision after considering the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg, (Doc. No. 10), along with Williams' objections to thereto, (Doc. No. 11), and Respondent's response to Williams' objections, (Doc. No. 12). Williams now moves for an extension of time to file objections to the Report & Recommendation, claiming "it was determined that petitioner had failed to put forth any objection to the magistrate's report." (Doc. No. 15 at 1). Because Williams did file objections to the Report & Recommendation, which I specifically considered when reaching my decision to dismiss the petition as time-barred, the motion for an extension of time to file additional objections is denied as meritless. (Doc. No. 15). Further, I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
