Lynch v. Myers, et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 27

ORDER as follows: 1. Petitioner's 25 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation are OVERRULED; 2. The 24 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus under 2254 is DENIED; and 4. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice because it was filed after the expiration of the one-year limitation period in 2254(d). Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/18/2018. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
McARTHUR LYNCH, JR.,
#179533,
Petitioner,
v.
WALTER MYERS, Warden for
Easterling Correctional Facility,
STATE OF ALABAMA, and
STEVEN T. MARSHALL,
Attorney General for the State of
Alabama,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-73-WKW

ORDER
Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that
Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition be dismissed as time-barred. (Doc. # 24.)
Petitioner has filed objections. (Doc. # 25.) Having conducted an independent and
de novo review of the Recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and having
construed Petitioner’s objection with the leniency afforded pro se litigants, the court
concludes the objection is due to be overruled.
Petitioner’s conviction became final on September 11, 2013, and the statute
of limitations to file a § 2254 petition expired on September 11, 2014. Petitioner did

not file his § 2254 petition until January 26, 2016. As correctly detailed in the
Recommendation, Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to statutory or
equitable tolling. Nor has he made a colorable claim of actual innocence.
Petitioner’s objections fail to address or undermine the Recommendation’s
findings regarding the statute of limitations, statutory and equitable tolling, and
actual innocence. Instead, Petitioner mainly reargues the merits of some of his timebarred substantive claims. Petitioner’s objections, therefore, are due to be overruled.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Petitioner’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

(Doc. # 25) are OVERRULED;
2.

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 24) is

ADOPTED;
3.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 is DENIED; and

4.

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice because it was filed after the

expiration of the one-year limitation period in § 2254(d).
DONE this 18th day of April, 2018.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2