Opinion
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-110 (CAR)
05-07-2012
CHRISTOPHER HUDSON, Petitioner, v. GREGORY MCLAUGHLIN, Respondent.
ORDER ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Currently before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle's Recommendation [Doc. 15] that Petitioner Christopher Hudson's petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as untimely according to the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Petitioner filed an Objection to the Recommendation [Doc. 16]. Having considered Petitioner's Objection and having reviewed the matter de novo, this Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that he is not entitled to equitable tolling. His objection, however, simply restates arguments made in his original § 2254 petition. Petitioner again asserts that he was unable to file his state habeas corpus petition until he received a transcript of his guilty plea proceedings in June 2008, which was over ten years after the AEDPA limitations period expired. He refers to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that he could have sought relief without the transcript as "wholly illogical." [Doc. 16, p. 3]. Nevertheless, Petitioner does not elaborate on this argument and he fails show that he has been pursuing his rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way to prevent timely filing. Holland v. Florida, --- U.S. ---, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010) (citation omitted).
As explained by the Magistrate Judge, it is undisputed that Petitioner was present during his guilty plea proceedings in May 1995, and thus he "could have raised the alleged grounds for relief without reference to a transcript of the proceedings." [Doc. 15, p. 4]. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 15] is hereby ADOPTED and MADE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT. Defendant Gregory McLaughlin's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 11] is GRANTED. Because it does not appear that Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
________________________
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
AES