Opinion
Case No. 04 CV 01275 JM (POR).
September 23, 2005
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction for second degree robbery on several grounds, including the denial of due process. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that the petition was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. On June 22, 2005, United States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter issued a Report and Recommendation ("RR") recommending Allen's petition be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner was granted an additional 21 days to file objections to the RR and filed objections on August 25, 2005. For the reasons set forth below, the court overrules Petitioner's objections and wholly adopts the conclusions and findings contained in the RR incorporated by reference herein.
The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge's RR are set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). Having conducted a de novo review of the papers submitted, the court finds the RR presents a thorough and sound analysis of the issues raised by the parties. While Petitioner objects to the findings contained in the RR, the objections simply restate, with greater clarity, the arguments made in the petition. The RR properly found that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Therefore, the court concludes Respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted for the reasons set forth in the RR.
For the foregoing reasons, the court adopts in whole the findings and conclusion contained in the Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus.