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)

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).