Pina v. Stephens

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION granting 15 MOTION to Dismiss Petitioner's Federal Writ Petition as Timebarred, 29 Memorandum and Recommendation. Action is DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE. In the event that Petitioner requests a Certificate of Appealability, that request is DENIED.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ARMANDO PINA,
Petitioner,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS,
Respondent.

December 03, 2015
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-00078
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 26, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued
her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 29), recommending that this action be
dismissed as time-barred. The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to
object to, the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been filed.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 29), and all other relevant
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge with one correction on the top of page
1/2

5, which states that the deadline to file the federal petition was November 18, 2010. The
actual deadline was November 18, 2009. The correction of this typographical error only
strengthens the outcome of the limitations issue in which Petitioner's federal habeas
corpus application is held to be time-barred. Accordingly, the Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss (D.E. 15) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In the event that Petitioner requests a Certificate of Appealability, that request is
DENIED.
ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 2015.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2