Collins v. Barrett et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 26

ORDER that the Petitioner's 25 objection is OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the 24 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED that this petition for habeas corpus relief is DENIED as it was not filed within the one-year period of limitations mandated by the provisions of 28 USC § 2244(d)(1), and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 4/8/2015. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

STANFORD LOUIS COLLINS, #112513,
Petitioner,
vs.
BOBBY BARRETT, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-433-WHA
(wo)

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #24),
and the Petitioner’s Objection thereto (Doc. #25). Following an independent evaluation and de
novo review of the Recommendation, the Objection, and the file in this case, the court finds as
follows:
The Magistrate Judge recommended that this 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition be denied as it
was not filed within the one-year period of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The
Recommendation rejected the Petitioner’s argument that since the petition challenged a decision
of an administrative agency, the Parole Board, the petition was not subject to the federal
limitations period.
In the Objection, the Petitioner initially argues that the Magistrate Judge improperly
relied on the limitations period to deny him relief instead of addressing the merits of his claims.
This assertion is without merit. Next, the Petitioner again argues that the limitations period
cannot be used to deny review of his habeas petition because it addresses the action of an
administrative agency. This argument is foreclosed by federal law.

Therefore, the Petitioner’s objection is OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby
ORDERED that this petition for habeas corpus relief is DENIED as it was not filed
within the one-year period of limitations mandated by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1),
and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
DONE this 8th day of April, 2015.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE