Dowdell #364229 v. McQuiggin

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 3 ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (EDTN Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

CLIFFORD DOWDELL, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2:09-cv-108 HON. R. ALLAN EDGAR

GREG MCQUIGGIN, Respondent. _____________________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner Clifford Dowdell, a Michigan state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.1(d). On July 10, 2009, the Magistrate Judge submitted his report and recommendation. [Doc. No. 3]. It is recommended that the habeas petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice on the ground that it is time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(A). It is further recommended that the Court deny a certificate of appealablity under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner Dowdell has not timely filed any objections to the report and recommendation. After reviewing the record, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). The Court concludes that the 28

1

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition must be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons expressed in the report and recommendation. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 shall be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the ground that it is time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(A). If petitioner Dowdell files a notice of appeal, it will be treated as an application for a certificate of appealability which shall be DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); and Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) for the reasons expressed in the report and recommendation. Reasonable jurists could not find it debatable whether all of the petitioner's habeas claims have been properly dismissed on the ground that they are time barred the statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(A). A separate judgment will enter. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 10, 2009.

/s/

R. Allan Edgar R. ALLAN EDGAR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2