Hawkins v. Thomas et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 4 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 12/15/2015. (JLC)

Download PDF
FILED 2015 Dec-15 AM 11:54 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION EARL PRESTON HAWKINS, Petitioner, v. WILLIE THOMAS, et al., Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 7:15-cv-1132-VEH-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought by the petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 28, 2015, the Magistrate ordered the petitioner to “to SHOW CAUSE in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days from the entry date of this order why his § 2254 petition is not due to be denied as barred by the statute of limitations provided by § 2244(d)(1)(A).” (Doc. at 6) (emphasis in original). On November 13, 2015, the petitioner filed his response to that order. (Doc. 3). On November 18, 2015, the Magistrate recommended that Hawkins’s § 2254 petition be denied as barred by the statute of limitations provided by § 2244(d)(1)(A). Furthermore, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 2254 Proceedings, the undersigned RECOMMENDS a certificate of appealability be DENIED. (Doc. 4 at 9) (emphasis in original). No objections have been filed by any party. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and her recommendation is ACCEPTED. The Court EXPRESSLY FINDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is time barred and therefore due to be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A Final Judgment will be entered. DONE this the 15th day of December, 2015. VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?