Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-4462
02-19-2013
WILLIAM MILLER v. MICHAEL HARLOW, et al
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of February, 2013, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 1), the Respondents' Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Petitioner's "Traverse Response" to Respondents' Answer Filed, the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge (Document No. 15) and the petitioner's objection to the Report and Recommendation (Document No. 16), and after a thorough and independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that:
Petitioner does not challenge the magistrate judge's finding regarding the statute of limitations. He does not dispute the calculation of the time under the Anti- terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Instead, he argues that he was not given discovery that he had requested and he emphasizes his lack of legal ability. Nowhere does he address the untimeliness of his petition nor does he offer any excuse for the delay in filing it.
1. The petitioner's objection is OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Strawbridge is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and,
4. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.
____________________
TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.