Summary
rejecting petitioner's argument that his untimely § 2254 petition should be reviewed under the “actual innocence” exception where he asserted that DNA testing would exonerate him but did not proffer any evidence that testing had actually been done and that the results exculpated him
Summary of this case from Williams v. DixonOpinion
Case No.: 3:07cv390/LAC/EMT.
March 12, 2008
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and recommendation dated February 8, 2008. The parties have been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of objections filed, if any.
Having considered the report and recommendation, and any timely filed objections thereto, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED.
3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.
DONE AND ORDERED