Gray v. Forniss et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 23

ORDER that the 22 Objection is OVERRULED, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The 21 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2244(d). Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 8/18/2015. (dmn, )

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

ORLANDO GRAY, #258788,
Petitioner,
vs.
LEON FORNISS, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-761-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #21),
entered on June 23, 2015, together with the Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. #22), filed on July 13,
2015.
Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, the court
finds the objection to be without merit. For the reasons set out in the Recommendation, the court
agrees that the one-year limitation period in § 2244(d) expired on September 16, 2013, and, since
the Petitioner did not file his § 2254 petition until October 17, 2013, the petition is time-barred.
Therefore, the objection is OVERRULED, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED.
2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d).

DONE this 18th day of August, 2015.

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