Pettigrew v. Oliver

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING the 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as the Court's opinion, granting Respondent's 10 Motion to Dismiss, dismissing without prejudice Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as untimely, discerning no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue, denying in forma pauperis status on appeal, and directing the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge R. Stan Baker on 05/13/2024. (jlh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION MATTHEW DEAN PETTIGREW, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:23-cv-347 v. TYRONE OLIVER, Respondent. ORDER Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s April 4, 2024 Report and Recommendation, (doc. 16), to which no objections have been filed. After a careful de novo review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Court, therefore, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, (doc. 16), as its opinion. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. 10.) Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, without prejudice, as untimely. (Doc. 1.) Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards, which are set forth in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009), the Court discerns no COAworthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (approving sua sponte denial of COA before movant filed a notice of appeal). And, as there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, in forma pauperis status on appeal is likewise DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 13th day of May, 2024. R. STAN BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 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?