Piner v. State of Mississippi

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, granting 7 Motion to Dismiss, filed by State of Mississippi, Timothy Outlaw; denying 13 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Charles Harvey Piner; adopting 14 Report and Recommendations. Case dismissed with prejudice as time barred. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 3/11/14 (copy mailed to Charles Piner at #131751, 120 Ford Street, Room #7, Jackson, MS 39203)(LWE)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION CHARLES HARVEY PINER, #131751 VS. PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV238TSL-JMR TIMOTHY OUTLAW RESPONDENT ORDER This cause came on this date to be heard upon the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John M. Roper, and the court, having fully reviewed the report and recommendation entered in this cause on January 22, 2014, and being duly advised in the premises, finds that said report and recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this court. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John M. Roper entered on January 22, 2014, be, and the same is hereby adopted as the finding of this court, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby dismissed with prejudice. It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability should not issue. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether [this] court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000). A separate judgment will be entered herein in accordance with this order as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2014. /s/ Tom S. Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?