From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bryant v. Bock

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Feb 2, 2009
No. CV08-0614-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2009)

Opinion

No. CV08-0614-PHX-SRB.

February 2, 2009


ORDER


Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 28, 2008. Respondents filed their answer to Petitioner's Petition on September 29, 2008. On October 17, 2008 Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On October 30, 2008 the Court granted Petitioner's Motion and extended the time for Petitioner to file a reply to Respondents' Response to December 1, 2008. No reply has been filed. On January 5, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied because it was untimely filed long after the expiration of the statute of limitations.

In his Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 10 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. (doc. 15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Bryant v. Bock

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Feb 2, 2009
No. CV08-0614-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2009)
Case details for

Bryant v. Bock

Case Details

Full title:Lonnie Rey Bryant, Petitioner, v. Warden Bock, et al. Respondents

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Feb 2, 2009

Citations

No. CV08-0614-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2009)

Citing Cases

Young v. United States

ederal court and litigated its use under the wrong federal statute (§ 2241 instead of § 2255) cannot toll the…

White v. Keller

Unfortunately for Petitioner, a flawed filing in federal court does not toll the limitations period. See…