Lawrence v. MCLAUGHLIN

Filing 19

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 15 Report and Recommendations. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 5/13/2015. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

ROOSEVELT LAWRENCE,
Petitioner,

7:14-CV-125 (HL)

v.

28 U.S.C. § 2254

GREGORY McLAUGHLIN,
Respondent.

ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge (Doc. 15) that Petitioner’s habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be
dismissed. Petitioner Roosevelt Lawrence (“Petitioner”) has filed an Objection
(Doc. 18) to the Recommendation. After undertaking a de novo review of the
Recommendation, the Court accepts and adopts it in full.
As the Recommendation sets forth, Petitioner filed his federal habeas
petition well after the one-year statute of limitations for doing so had run. The
Court will not recite the lengthy history of Petitioner’s conviction, appeal, and
habeas petition in state court, which has been detailed in the Recommendation,
but, suffice to say, Petitioner’s state-court conviction became final for the
purposes of filing a federal habeas petition on May 31, 2010. See Webster v.
Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000). Since he did not file his current

federal petition1 until August 11, 2014, it is clearly too late to be heard by this
Court. Nor is there a basis for equitably tolling the statute of limitations because
Petitioner has not been diligently pursuing his rights and there is no evidence that
some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from timely filing a habeas
petition. See Hutchinson v. Florida, 677 F.3d 1097, 1100 (11th Cir. 2012).
After careful consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court
accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
United States Magistrate Judge. Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is dismissed.
The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing
that he has been denied a constitutional right, and a certificate of appealability is
therefore denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–
84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

SO ORDERED, this 13th day of May, 2015.

s/ Hugh Lawson______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
scr  

1

As the Recommendation details, Petitioner initially filed a petition in federal court in
July 2010, but this was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his remedies
at the state level.
2