Rohrs v. Moham et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 23 Supplemental Report and Recommendation, GRANTING 19 Motion to Dismiss filed by Rickey W Moham, DISMISSING as untimely 1 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 8/21/13. (llg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA FRANCIS E. ROHRS a/k/a FRANCES ) ELAINE ROHRS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) RICKEY MOHAM, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) Case No. CIV-13-288-F ORDER United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell issued a Supplemental Report and Recommendation on July 17, 2013, recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and that petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed as untimely. Magistrate Judge Purcell advised the parties of their respective right to file an objection to the Supplemental Report and Recommendation by August 6, 2013 and specifically advised that failure to timely file an objection would waive appellate review of the recommended ruling. To date, the court has neither received an objection nor a request for an extension of time to file an objection. With no objection being filed by either party, the court accepts, adopts and affirms the Supplemental Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Supplemental Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell on July 17, 2013 (doc. no. 23) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Habeas Corpus as Time Barred by the Statute of Limitations, filed June 26, 2013 (doc. no. 19), is GRANTED. Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, filed March 26, 2013 (doc. no. 1) is DISMISSED as untimely. DATED August 21st , 2013. 13-0288p002.docx 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?