From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Latham v. King

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 15, 2013
CIVIL NO. 1:13cv215-HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. Nov. 15, 2013)

Opinion

CIVIL NO. 1:13cv215-HSO-RHW

11-15-2013

LAMONT LATHAM PETITIONER v. RONALD KING RESPONDENT


ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND

RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS,

AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

BEFORE THE COURT is the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker [8] entered on October 8, 2013. Also before the Court is the Respondent Ronald King's ("Respondent") Motion to Dismiss [7] the Petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Respondent contends that Petitioner Lamont Latham's ("Latham") Petition was not timely filed and should be dismissed. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the findings in the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation, the record, and the positions advanced in the Motion, and concludes that Latham's Petition was untimely filed, and Respondent's Motion should be granted.

To date, no objection to the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation has been filed by Latham. Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge's findings of fact and recommendation, a Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("[A] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). In such cases, the court need only review the proposed findings of fact and recommendation and determine whether it is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

The record reflects that as of October 11, 2013, Latham had signed for receipt of the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation [9].

Having conducted the required review, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation thoroughly considered all issues and is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that the Magistrate Judge properly recommended that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss should be granted and that the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed as time barred. The Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation [8] of Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered on October 8, 2013, is adopted as the finding of this Court.

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [7] filed July 16, 2013, is GRANTED, and Petitioner's Petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Order as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

___________________

HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Latham v. King

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 15, 2013
CIVIL NO. 1:13cv215-HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. Nov. 15, 2013)
Case details for

Latham v. King

Case Details

Full title:LAMONT LATHAM PETITIONER v. RONALD KING RESPONDENT

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 15, 2013

Citations

CIVIL NO. 1:13cv215-HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. Nov. 15, 2013)

Citing Cases

Nash v. Cain

First, Rowland is a decision about procedural bars to state post-conviction relief in Mississippi. Latham v.…