Opinion
Case No. 1:04CV1748.
October 17, 2005
This case is before the Court on Pro Se Plaintiff Austin Aitken's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Docket No. 1). This matter was referred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1, to Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh for a Report and Recommendation ("RR"). (Docket No. 6). On 20 July 2005, Magistrate Judge McHargh issued an RR recommending that Mr. Aitken's petition be denied because it was not filed within the statutory time limits. (Docket No. 16). Mr. Aitken filed a timely objection to Magistrate Judge Baughman's RR. (Docket No. 16).
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo the portion of the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation to which specific objection was made. Upon review, this Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Although Mr. Aitken filed a timely objection to Magistrate Judge Baughman's RR, the single-page of text and attached transcript excerpt has no relation to this issue of the untimeliness of Mr. Aitken's petition. (Docket No. 16). Rather, Mr. Aitken's submission highlights that Mr. Aitken was apparently informed in state court that he "could be kept under supervision for up to three years" — not four years. (Id.). This fact goes to the merits of Mr. Aitken's claims — merits we cannot reach due to the undisputed untimeliness of Mr. Aitken's petition.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Magistrate Judge Baughman's RR is adopted. Mr. Aitken's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docket No. 1) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.