Filed: Feb. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge. AND NOW , this 20th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of the pleadings and the record in this case, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell dated January 28, 2015, and the Written Objection of pro se petitioner, Eric N. Taulton, the Court noting that Magistrate Judge Angell recommended dismissal of the habeas corpus petition as time-barred, and the fact that pro se petitioner's Writt
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge. AND NOW , this 20th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of the pleadings and the record in this case, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell dated January 28, 2015, and the Written Objection of pro se petitioner, Eric N. Taulton, the Court noting that Magistrate Judge Angell recommended dismissal of the habeas corpus petition as time-barred, and the fact that pro se petitioner's Writte..
More
ORDER
JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of the pleadings and the record in this case, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell dated January 28, 2015, and the Written Objection of pro se petitioner, Eric N. Taulton, the Court noting that Magistrate Judge Angell recommended dismissal of the habeas corpus petition as time-barred, and the fact that pro se petitioner's Written Objection does not address the timeliness of the habeas corpus petition, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell dated January 28, 2015, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. The Written Objection to the Report and Recommendation filed by pro se petitioner is OVERRULED;
3. The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by pro se petitioner, Eric N. Taulton, is DISMISSED as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); and,
4. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate the propriety of this Court's procedural ruling with respect to petitioner=s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
