BETHUNE v. KEMP

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendations and denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and denying 11 Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 2/23/12 (lap) ***

Download PDF
  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE    MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA    ATHENS DIVISION    DEXTER BETHUNE,  :  :  Petitioner,        :              :  No. 3:11‐CV‐133 (CAR)  v.          :      :  Proceeding Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254  RALPH KEMP, Warden,  :    :  Respondent.  :  ___________________________________  :    ORDER ON RECOMMENDATION   Before  the  Court  is  United  States  Magistrate  Judge  Charles  Weigle’s  Recommendation  [Doc.  15]  to  deny  Petitioner  Dexter  Bethune’s  28  U.S.C.  §  2254  petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. 1].  Petitioner has not entered an objection to  the  Recommendation.    Upon  review  of  the  record  of  the  case,  the  Court  agrees  with  the  findings  and  conclusions  of  the  United  States  Magistrate  Judge  that  Petitioner  failed  to  file  his  petition  within  the  one‐year  period  of  limitations  and  has  failed  to  show  adequate  grounds  for  equitable  tolling.    Accordingly,  the  Recommendation  [Doc.  15]  is  hereby  ADOPTED  and  MADE  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  COURT.  Respondent’s  Motion  to  Dismiss  is  GRANTED,  and  Petitioner’s  Petition  for  Writ  of  1    Habeas  Corpus  [Doc.  1]  is  DENIED.    Additionally,  because  Petitioner  has  failed  to  make  a  substantial  showing  of  the  denial  of  a  constitutional  right,  a  certificate  of  appealability is DENIED.   SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of February, 2012.    S/  C. Ashley Royal  C. ASHLEY ROYAL  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE  SSH    2   

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?