Summary
stating that a habeas petitioner was not excused from complying with the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations "simply because he claim[ed] that he had inadequate access to legal materials, [was] proceeding pro se, or [was] ignorant of the relevant case law."
Summary of this case from Cisco v. United StatesOpinion
1:06CV1108.
September 26, 2007
ORDER
On August 10, 2007, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed and notice was served on the parties in this action and a copy was given to the court.
Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, Petitioner objected to the Recommendation.
The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's report. The court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss [Pleading no. 5] be GRANTED, and that this action be, and is hereby, dismissed with prejudice. Finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is not issued.