Williams v. Morgan
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM RULING re 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Timothy Dewayne Williams. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 04/06/2016. (crt,McDonnell, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
TIMOTHY DEWAYNE WILLIAMS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2346
VERSUS
JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
JAY MORGAN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge
Hornsby (Record Document 8).
Plaintiff, Timothy Williams (“Williams”), timely filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Record Document 9)
on February 16, 2016. Williams also filed a Motion to Reconsider (Record Document 10)
on March 14, 2016, again in relation to the Report and Recommendation. The Motion to
Reconsider was denied by Magistrate Judge Hornsby (Record Document 11) on March 15,
2016. Williams then filed additional “Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation” (Record Document 12) which has been construed as a Magistrate
Appeal.
This Court will consider Record Documents 9 and 12 as objections to the Report and
Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Hornsby.1 Likewise, out of an abundance
of caution, this Court has also considered Record Document 10 as objections to the Report
and Recommendation. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and after an independent review of the record,
1
If the Court were to consider Record Document 12 as a Magistrate Appeal,
Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s Order would have to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law
to be overturned. Williams has not made such a showing; therefore, the Magistrate Appeal
would be DENIED.
including all written objections filed by Williams, and determining that the findings are
correct under the applicable law;
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED
AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, sua sponte, because it is time-barred by the oneyear limitation period imposed by the AEDPA.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the U.S. District
Courts requires the district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters
a final order adverse to the applicant. The court, after considering the record in this case
and the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 2253, denies a certificate of appealability
because the applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 6th day
of April, 2016.
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?