WILLIAMS v. PERRY

Filing 16

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 2/17/2017; that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 12 ) is ADOPTED. Respondent's motion to dismiss this action for being filed beyond the one-year limitation period (Doc. 3 ) i s GRANTED, that Petitioner's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1 ) is DENIED, and that this action is DISMISSED. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. Finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is not issued. (Sheets, Jamie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EDWARD WILLIAMS, III,
Petitioner,
v.
FRANK L. PERRY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16CV531

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Recommendation filed on November 30, 2016, by the Magistrate
Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 12.) In the
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) be granted, that
Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) be dismissed, and
that judgment be entered dismissing this action. The
Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on
December 1, 2016 (Doc. 13) and on January 5, 2017 (Doc. 14).
Petitioner timely filed objections (Doc. 15) to the
Recommendation.
This court is required to Amake a de novo determination of
those portions of the [Magistrate Judge=s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.@

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This court Amay accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge. . . . [O]r recommit the matter
to the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions.@

Id.

This court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Recommendation to which objections were made and has made a
de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate
Judge=s Recommendation. This court therefore adopts the
Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge=s
Recommendation (Doc. 12) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
Respondent’s motion to dismiss this action for being filed beyond
the one-year limitation period (Doc. 3) is GRANTED, that
Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) is DENIED, and that
this action is DISMISSED. A Judgment dismissing this action will
be entered contemporaneously with this Order. Finding no
substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a
constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable
procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is not issued.
This the 17th day of February, 2017.

________________________________
United States District Judge
- 2 -