United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders. Doc. #14.
about October 11, 2017, Paul Robinson filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Mississippi regarding his conviction
for murder and the revocation of his probation on his
conviction for mayhem. Doc. #1. Claiming his Fifth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, Robinson asks
the Court to “overturn [his] conviction or at least
grant [him] a new trial ….” Id. at 5-6,
December 14, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge David A.
Sanders directed the State of Mississippi to file a response
to the petition no later than March 13, 2018. Doc. #5 at 1.
On the State's motion, Judge Sanders extended the
State's time to respond to May 14, 2018. Docs. #8, #9. On
May 11, 2018, the State filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. #11.
On or about May 30, 2018, Robinson filed a “Reply
Brief.” Doc. #13.
August 14, 2018, Judge Sanders issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the State's motion to
dismiss be granted and that Robinson's petition for a
writ of habeas corpus “be dismissed as untimely
filed.” Doc. #14 at 1. Judge Sanders determined
Robinson's probation revocation for his mayhem conviction
became final on January 25, 2002, and “any federal
habeas corpus challenge to the revocation proceeding
was due on … January 27, 2003.” Id. at
4. Additionally, Judge Sanders determined Robinson's
murder conviction became final on October 20, 2003, and any
federal habeas corpus challenge was due on October 20, 2004.
August 31, 2018, the Court received from Robinson a document
titled, “Summary of Judgement, ” the substance of
which this Court construes as an objection to the Report and
Recommendation. Doc. #16. On September 13, 2018, the State
filed a response to it. Doc. #18.
Standard of Review
28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report … to which objection is made.”
“[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only
determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v.
Alaniz, 278 F.Supp.3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th
case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), which
imposes a one-year deadline for filing habeas petitions from
the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion
of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking
such review.” Green v. Banks, No. 1:18-CV-181,
2018 WL 6169223, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Nov. 26, 2018) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2),
“[t]he federal limitations period is tolled while a
properly filed application for State post-conviction or other
collateral review is pending.” O'Neal v.
Banks, No. 1:17-CV-22, 2017 WL 1483298, at *2 (N.D.
Miss. Apr. 25, 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
objection, Robinson argues he suffered ineffective assistance
of counsel and was illegally sentenced, which he contends are
exceptions to the one-year limitations period. Doc. #16 at
3-4. Also in his objection, Robinson raises claims of actual
innocence to his convictions for mayhem and murder.