Ashford v. Woods

E.D. Arkansas

Ashford v. Woods

DecidedSeptember 13, 2024

Docket4:22-cv-01088

StatusUnknown

This text of Ashford v. Woods (Ashford v. Woods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashford v. Woods, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

CHARLES EDWARD ASHFORD PETITIONER

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-001088-KGB

LAFAYETTE WOODS RESPONDENT

ORDER Before the Court is the Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 10). Petitioner Charles Edward Ashford made two filings after the Recommended Disposition that the Court construes as objections to the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. Nos. 11; 12). Also pending is Mr. Ashford’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13). After careful consideration of the Recommended Disposition, the objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 10). The Court writes separately to address Mr. Ashford’s objections (Dkt. Nos. 11; 12). The Recommended Disposition recommends that Mr. Ashford’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied because he has not exhausted his state court remedies and because the Court must be “conscious of the need to prevent perversion of the habeas corpus jurisdiction into a pretrial- motion forum for prisoners.” Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1974) (cleaned up). Upon a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that Mr. Ashford’s objections break no new ground and fail to rebut the Recommended Disposition. Thus, the Court agrees with the Recommended Disposition and adopts it as the Court’s findings in its entirety (Dkt. No. 10). The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Ashford’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 2). The Court denies as moot Mr. Ashford’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13). The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Mr. Ashford may still apply to the Eighth Circuit for a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). It is so ordered this the 13th day of September, 2024.

Hu sh A : Palurw_— Kristine G. Baker Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

CHARLES EDWARD ASHFORD PETITIONER

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-001088-KGB

LAFAYETTE WOODS RESPONDENT

ORDER Before the Court is the Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 10). Petitioner Charles Edward Ashford made two filings after the Recommended Disposition that the Court construes as objections to the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. Nos. 11; 12). Also pending is Mr. Ashford’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13). After careful consideration of the Recommended Disposition, the objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 10). The Court writes separately to address Mr. Ashford’s objections (Dkt. Nos. 11; 12). The Recommended Disposition recommends that Mr. Ashford’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied because he has not exhausted his state court remedies and because the Court must be “conscious of the need to prevent perversion of the habeas corpus jurisdiction into a pretrial- motion forum for prisoners.” Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1974) (cleaned up). Upon a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that Mr. Ashford’s objections break no new ground and fail to rebut the Recommended Disposition. Thus, the Court agrees with the Recommended Disposition and adopts it as the Court’s findings in its entirety (Dkt. No. 10). The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Ashford’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 2). The Court denies as moot Mr. Ashford’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13). The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Mr. Ashford may still apply to the Eighth Circuit for a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). It is so ordered this the 13th day of September, 2024.

Hu sh A : Palurw_— Kristine G. Baker Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ashford v. Woods, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashford-v-woods-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack