Henderson v. Norris

Filing 43

ORDER adopting 39 Report and Recommendations as the Court's own; granting 32 Ray Hobbs's Motion to Dismiss; dismissing with prejudice 1 Samuel L. Henderson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 31 Supplement; and, denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 9/13/2012. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
SAMUEL L. HENDERSON
ADC #120748
VS.

PETITIONER
NO. 5:07-CV-00093-JMM-BD

RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Dept. of Correction

RESPONDENT
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”)
received from Magistrate Judge Beth Deere; has considered Mr. Henderson’s objections
to the Recommendation1; and has reviewed de novo those portions of the
Recommendation to which Mr. Henderson objects2. After careful consideration, this
Court adopts the Recommendation as its own. Ray Hobbs’s motion to dismiss (#32) is
granted and Samuel L. Henderson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (docket entry #1)
and supplement (#31) are dismissed, with prejudice.
When entering a final order adverse to a habeas corpus petitioner, the Court must

1

Petitioner requests the Court provide him with a file marked copy of his
objections and a date on which the motion to dismiss was filed, docket # 42. The Court
mailed Petitioner a copy of his objections on September 12, 2012. The Clerk of the Court
is directed to provide Petitioner with a copy of the docket sheet showing the filings in the
case.
2

Petitioner states that he placed a Response to the Respondent’s motion to dismiss
in the prison mail system. The Court did not receive this response. However, Petitioner
has set forth his arguments in opposition to dismissal in his Objections to the
Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will interpret his objections as his response to
the pending motion as well as his objections to the Recommendation.

issue or deny a certificate of appealability. Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases. A certificate of appealability may issue only if a petitioner has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). In this case,
there is no basis for this court to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a
certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of September, 2012.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE