Opinion
4:20-cv-01301-KGB-JTK
03-26-2024
RANDY DUCK PETITIONER v. DEXTER PAYNE RESPONDENT
ORDER
Kristine G. Baker Chief United States District Judge
Before the Court is a Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. No. 21). Petitioner Randy Duck filed timely objections to the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 23). After consideration of the Recommended Disposition, the timely objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Recommended Disposition as the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in all respects (Dkt. No. 21).
Mr. Duck filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his conviction for rape in Union County, Arkansas, Circuit Court (Dkt. No. 2). Mr. Duck maintains in his petition that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and impartial jury (Id.). Respondent Dexter Payne argues in his response that all of Mr. Duck's habeas corpus claims should be dismissed because those claims were either procedurally defaulted or reasonably adjudicated in state court (Dkt. Nos. 12, at 1-2; 21, at 2).
In his Recommended Disposition, Judge Ray identifies seven claims alleged by Mr. Duck, explains that five of the claims were fully exhausted by Mr. Duck, but further explains that two claims were not properly raised in Mr. Duck's Rule 37 proceeding in Arkansas state court (Dkt. No. 21, at 3-4). Instead of addressing the procedural default analysis on these two claims, Judge Ray instead elects to examine the merits of all seven of Mr. Duck's habeas claims (Id., at 4). Judge Ray concludes in his Recommended Disposition that all seven of Mr. Duck's habeas claims fail on the merits, and he recommends dismissing with prejudice Mr. Duck's habeas action and denying a certificate of appealability (Id., at 22).
In his objections, Mr. Duck reasserts the same points raised in his petition (Dkt. No. 23). These points were addressed by Mr. Payne in his response and by Judge Ray in the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. Nos. 12; 21). Mr. Duck breaks no new ground with his objections, and he does not rebut the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth by Judge Ray in the Recommended Disposition. As a result, Mr. Duck's objections are overruled, and the Court adopts the Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in all respects (Dkt. No. 21).
The Court denies Mr. Duck's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 2). The Court dismisses with prejudice this habeas action. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
It is so ordered