Ashford v. Hobbs

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 and dismissing the petition with prejudice. The 14 Motion to Amend/Correct filed by Charles Ashford is denied. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/10/12. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION CHARLES ASHFORD ADC # 133975 v. PLAINTIFF No.5:11-cv-132-DPM-JTK RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction DEFENDANT ORDER The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney's Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Document No. 16, to which Ashford has objected, Document No. 18. Upon de novo review of the record, FED. R. ClV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court adopts the proposal with two brief clarifications. Because all of Ashford's claims are procedurally defaulted - and there being no showing that would excuse this default or demonstrate actual innocence - his petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed. Two clarifications. First, Ashford rightly objected, Document No. 18, at 1, to point out that he was not charged with theft in Pulaski County Circuit Court. Second, Ashford's second motion to amend, Document No. 14, is considered on the merits and denied. Judge Kearney, "in an abundance of caution," allowed Ashford a chance to amend his petition, but directed him to "specifically provide facts that outline his expungement claim" and also "address whether he exhausted his state remedies." Document No. 12, at 3-4. Because Ashford failed to comply with both of these directives, his motion to amend is denied. Ashford's petition, Document No.2, is dismissed with prejudice. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability because Ashford has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). Ashford's motion to amend, Document No. 14, is denied. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge IV ~l/~ :/.01;)­ -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?