Beasley v. Westbrooks

Filing 34

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: As explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that the petition is time-barred. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27 ) is therefore GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. This is a final order for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 6/1/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION DEMANCE BEASLEY, Petitioner, v. BRUCE WESTBROOKS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) NO. 3:16-cv-3049 ) CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW ) ) ) ORDER As explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that the petition is time-barred. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) is therefore GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED. As also discussed in the Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that the issues raised in the § 2254 motion do not “deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The Court therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability (“COA”). The petitioner may, however, seek a COA directly from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). IT IS SO ORDERED. This is a final order for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. ____________________________________ WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?