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)

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