Golden v. Giles et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE; with the modification that this court concludes that Golden's habeas petition is due to be dismissed with prejudice because he failed to file his § 2254 petition within the time allowed 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), and it is SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/23/2015. (kh, )

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

ALLEN DALE GOLDEN, #134190,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
J. C. GILES, et al.,
Respondents.

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-063-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #23),
and Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. #24). Following an independent evaluation and de novo
review of this file, the court finds as follows:
1. This case is a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus. The Petitioner correctly
points out in his objections that the Magistrate Judge, in finding that the petition was untimely,
referred to the time allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), rather than the correct statute setting a
time limit for such petitions, i.e., 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). On review, the court finds that this
was a mere scrivener’s error in the Recommendation and that the Magistrate Judge correctly
analyzed the case under § 2244(d)(1). Therefore, the court SUSTAINS that objection, but only
to the extent that the court will analyze the Recommendation by modifying it to refer to the
correct statute.
2. The court finds all other objections to be without merit, and they are hereby
OVERRULED.

Therefore, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, with the
modification that this court concludes that Golden’s habeas petition is due to be dismissed with
prejudice because he failed to file his § 2254 petition within the time allowed by 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1), and it is
SO ORDERED.
DONE this 23rd day of March, 2015.

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