Matthews v. Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

Filing 39

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 32 Report and Recommendations. The original and supplemental Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus are denied and dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on August 31, 2015. (mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION TERRY DON MATTHEWS V. PETITIONER CASE NO. 12-CV-4113 RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed June 10, 2014, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 32. Judge Bryant recommends that the original and supplemental Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF Nos.1 and 28) be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner Terry Don Matthews has responded with objections, and the Court has reviewed the objections. ECF No. 34. The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that Matthews’s objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Report and Recommendation.1 After reviewing the record de novo, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in toto. Accordingly, the original and supplemental Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF Nos. 1 and 28) are DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 31st day of August, 2015. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge 1 The magistrate judge determined that, for all of Matthews’s claims, he has either procedurally defaulted or fully adjudicated the matters in state court with no ability for habeas review. The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination. Matthews procedurally defaulted on certain claims because he failed to present the claims to the state court. ECF No. 32, p. 5-7. Regarding the claims that were adjudicated in state court and preserved for the Court’s review, which are Matthews’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Matthews has not demonstrated that the state court adjudication: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or (2) “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

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?