MULLINS v. JONES

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and GRANTING 23 Amended Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, "Respondents amended motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED as untimely. Any certificate of appealability is DENIED and leave to appeal in forma pauperis is also DENIED.". Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 6/5/2017. (alb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION ROBERT RANDALL MULLINS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 3:16cv080-RV/CAS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SECRETARY, Respondent. / ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge dated May 3, 2017 (ECF No. 25), that Respondent’s amended motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) be granted and the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be dismissed as untimely. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. 2. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Respondent’s amended motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED as untimely. Any certificate of appealability is DENIED and leave to appeal in forma pauperis is also DENIED.” 3. The Clerk shall close the file. DONE AND ORDERED on this 5th day of June, 2017. s/ Roger Vinson ROGER VINSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?