Withersooon v. Estes et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 12

ORDERED as follows: (1) Plf's 11 objection is OVERRULED; (2) The 9 Recommendation is ADOPTED; (3) Petitioner's 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC § 2254 is DENIED; (4) All pending motions are DENIED as moot; and (5) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice because the petition is time-barred by the one-year limitation period in 28 USC § 2244(d). Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/4/2016. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
ARTHUR LEE WITHERSPOON,
# 260000,
Petitioner,
v.
DEWAYNE ESTES, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-165-WKW

ORDER
On February 12, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc.
# 9) to which Petitioner timely filed an objection (Doc. # 11). The court has
conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and finds
that the objection is without merit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 11) is OVERRULED;

(2)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 9) is ADOPTED;

(3)

Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. # 1) is DENIED;
(4)

All pending motions are DENIED as moot; and

(5)

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice because the petition is time-

barred by the one-year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 4th day of March, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2