Campbell v. Wilkinson
ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; mailed to Michael A Campbell #124566 HOLDENVILLE-DCF 6888 E 133rd Rd Holdenville, OK 74848-9033. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 12/29/16. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL A. CAMPBELL,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This action for habeas corpus relief brought by a prisoner, proceeding pro se, was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell, consistent with the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Mitchell recommended dismissal of the Petition as
untimely (Report & Recomm., Dkt. No. 10, Dec. 1, 2016) and gave Petitioner notice that his
right to be heard on the issue of timeliness would be by way of Objection to the Report and
Recommendation, which has been timely filed. The Court will consider the matter de novo.
In his objection, Petitioner totally fails to acknowledge or refute Judge Mitchell’s
findings of fact, including that Petitioner had knowledge of the breach of the plea agreement,
on which his Petition is based, as of July 30, 2010, and no subsequent post-conviction request
tolled the limitations period thereafter. Clearly, the statute of limitations within the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)
bars his Petition.
Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, and for the reasons announced therein, the Petition for habeas corpus relief
is dismissed, as untimely. As no amendment can cure the defect, this dismissal acts as an
adjudication on the merits, and a judgment will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of December, 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?