McJunkins v. Payne

Filing 17

ORDER adopting 12 Report and Recommendations in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects. The 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 7/8/2024. (fcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION BRENT CHARLES MCJUNKINS ADC #181804 v. PETITIONER Case No: 4:23-cv-01211-LPR DEXTER PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Division of Corrections RESPONDENT ORDER The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin (Doc. 12). No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.1 After a de novo review of the RD and careful consideration of the entire case record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the RD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions in all respects.2 Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of July 2024. LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Although he did not file objections, Petitioner did file an interlocutory appeal of the RD to the Eighth Circuit. See Doc. 13. The Court has considered the arguments raised in his Notice of Interlocutory Appeal as though they are objections to the RD. See Doc. 13. 2 Despite his argument to the contrary, Petitioner does not have a protected property interest in the procedures outlined in Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-93-615 (Parole eligibility procedures--Offenses committed after January 1, 1994). See Jennings v. Lombardi, 70 F.3d 994, 995–96 (8th Cir. 1995) (explaining that “a protected property interest is not created” by a state statute that is “only procedural”).

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?