Lamar v. Hobbs

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 and dismissing the petition without prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/3/12. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION ANTHONY D. LAMAR ADC # 120479 v. PETITIONER No.5:12-cv-182-DPM-JTR RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER Magistrate Judge Ray entered his proposed findings and recommended disposition in this case on 11 June 2012. Document No.7. Lamar timely objected. Document No.8. After a de novo review, the Court adopts Judge Ray's findings and recommended disposition as its own. FED. R. Crv. P. 72(b) (3). Lamar's earlier habeas corpus petition was dismissed because it was untimely. This was an adjudication on the merits, which makes his current petition a second or successive" petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). In re /I Rains, 659 F.3d 1274, 1275 (10th Cir. 2011); Quezada v. Smith, 624 F.3d 514, 518 (2d Cir. 2010); McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). "Before a second or successive application ... is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b )(3)(A). Lamar's habeas corpus petition is therefore dismissed without prejudice so that he may seek authorization from the U.5. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circui t to file his successive habeas petition. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. (I 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?