Pryor-Kendrick v. Hobbs

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30 ; granting 33 Motion for Copies; denying 10 Motion for Writ of Mandamus; denying 13 Motion to Transfer Case; denying 23 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 26 Motion for Order; denying 28 M otion for Order; denying 29 Motion to Amend/Correct, as modified. The Clerk is directed to scan and file all of document nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 & 28 electronically, and update or supplement the corresponding docket entries, by 10/5/12. The Clerk should mail all the originals back to Pryor-Kendrick by that date, too. The Court declines to enter a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/11/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

THERESA C. W. PRYOR-KENDRICK
ADC # 708204

v.

PETITIONER

No. 5:12-cv-6-DPM-JTK

RAY HOBBS

RESPONDENT

ORDER
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney has recommended, Document No.
30, that Pryor-Kendrick's petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied with

prejudice and that her motions to amend be denied. Pryor-Kendrick has filed
an objection, a statement of facts, and a letter. Document Nos. 31, 32 & 34.
On de novo review,

FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court adopts Judge

Kearney's thorough and well-reasoned opinion as its own with one
amplification: the citation to Bressman on page 10 should reflect that it is to
Judge Heaney's opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Pryor-Kendrick has elaborated her allegations about the 2009 parolerevocation hearing and earlier criminal convictions. But she has not produced
any authority-or even argument-that her challenges to that hearing or
those convictions are within the limitations period for a habeas action. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). And her timely claims are not cognizable.
Second proposed findings and recommendations, Document No. 30,
adopted in full as amplified. Motions to amend, Document Nos. 23 & 29,
denied. Other motions, Document Nos. 10, 13 & 26, are denied as moot.
Pryor-Kendrick's motion for copies, Document No. 33, is granted as modified.
The Clerk is directed to scan and file all of Document Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 &
28 electronically, and update or supplement the corresponding docket entries,

by 5 October 2012.

The Clerk should mail all the originals back to

Pryor-Kendrick by that date too.
The Court declines to enter a certificate of appealability as to this Order
or the related Judgment because Pryor-Kendrick has not made a substantial
showing that she was denied any constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) &
HABEAS CORPUS R.

11 (a).

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall r.
United States District Judge
11 September 2012

-2-