ROBERTS v. Taylor

Filing 13

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 11 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Objections are overruled. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 8/8/2012. (bcl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
KENNETH G. ROBERTS,

:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
CEDRIC TAYLOR, Warden
:
:
Respondent.
:
____________________________________:

CASE NO.: 1:11-CV-124 (WLS)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q.
Langstaff, filed May 16, 2012. (Doc. 11). It is recommended that Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss the Petition as Untimely Filed (Doc. 7) be granted. (Id. at 3).
The Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days from the date of its
service to file written objections to the recommendations therein. (Id.) The period for objections
expired on Wednesday, May 30, 2012. (See generally Docket). Petitioner’s Objection to the
Recommendation was not filed until June 5, 2012, with no explanation provided for the delay.
(Doc. 12). As such, it was not timely filed and will not be considered.1
Upon review and consideration, the objections set forth in Plaintiff’s Written Objections
to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) are OVERRULED, and United States Magistrate
Judge Langstaff’s May 16, 2012 Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and
made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein together

1

Petitioner’s objections, even if they were timely, are not persuasive. Petitioner’s objections focus primarily on
establishing a basis for equitable tolling. However, Petitioner admits that he was aware of the deadline established
by the AEDPA and chose not to file a petition until after the deadline had passed. (Doc. 12 at 1-3). The choice to
file an untimely petition was fully within his control and avoidable. Accordingly, this Court finds that Petitioner’s
Objection (Doc. 12) fails to rebut the legally sound recommendation of Judge Langstaff.

1

with the reasons stated and conclusions reached herein. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss the Petition as Untimely Filed (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this 8th

day of August, 2012.

/s/ W. Louis Sands
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2