From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stewart v. Stephens

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
Oct 26, 2015
Civil No. 7:13-CV-013-O (N.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2015)

Opinion

Civil No. 7:13-CV-013-O

10-26-2015

SHURMAN STEWART, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.


ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, of the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and of Petitioner's objections thereto, I am of the opinion that the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for dismissal set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation are correct and they are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as the Findings of the Court.

The Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissal of this action as barred by the statute of limitations. Review of the record reflects that Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling of the limitation period and that he has failed to set forth any facts or argument that could provide for equitable tolling of the limitation period.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as TIME-BARRED.

SO ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2015.

/s/ _________

Reed O'Connor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Stewart v. Stephens

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
Oct 26, 2015
Civil No. 7:13-CV-013-O (N.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2015)
Case details for

Stewart v. Stephens

Case Details

Full title:SHURMAN STEWART, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

Date published: Oct 26, 2015

Citations

Civil No. 7:13-CV-013-O (N.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2015)

Citing Cases

Dayley v. Beard

Accordingly, as other courts have done, this court considers cases examining section 2255(f)(4)'s diligence…