Rushing v. Vannoy

E.D. Louisiana

Rushing v. Vannoy

DecidedMarch 22, 2023

Docket2:21-cv-00929

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Rushing v. Vannoy, (E.D. La. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAVID RUSHING CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-929

STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. SECTION “R” (4)

ORDER David Rushing’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was referred to Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Roby subsequently recommended dismissal of the petition as time-barred.1 Rushing did not object to Magistrate Judge Roby’s finding that his petition was time-barred. Instead, he filed a generic objection that addressed the merits of his claim.2 Therefore, the Court reviews Magistrate Judge Roby’s recommendation that the petition be dismissed as untimely for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Hines v. Texas, 76 F. App’x 564, 566 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Because [the plaintiff] did not raise this issue in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we review it for plain error.” (citing Douglass, 79 F.3d at

1 R. Doc. 17. 2 See generally R. Doc. 18. 1429)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear

error on the face of the record in order to accept the reeommendation.”). The Court finds no clear error. Thus, the Court adopts Magistrate Roby’s R&R as its opinion. Cf. Curington v. Cain, No. 13-5258, 2015 WL 3953190, at *1 (E.D. La. June 29, 2015) (determining that, in light of petitioner’s conclusory objections, there was “no reason to reiterate the Magistrate Judge’s well- reasoned analysis”). The Court orders that Rushing’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _22nc_ day of March, 2023. Varn22_ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAVID RUSHING CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-929

STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. SECTION “R” (4)

ORDER David Rushing’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was referred to Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Roby subsequently recommended dismissal of the petition as time-barred.1 Rushing did not object to Magistrate Judge Roby’s finding that his petition was time-barred. Instead, he filed a generic objection that addressed the merits of his claim.2 Therefore, the Court reviews Magistrate Judge Roby’s recommendation that the petition be dismissed as untimely for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Hines v. Texas, 76 F. App’x 564, 566 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Because [the plaintiff] did not raise this issue in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we review it for plain error.” (citing Douglass, 79 F.3d at

1 R. Doc. 17. 2 See generally R. Doc. 18. 1429)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear

error on the face of the record in order to accept the reeommendation.”). The Court finds no clear error. Thus, the Court adopts Magistrate Roby’s R&R as its opinion. Cf. Curington v. Cain, No. 13-5258, 2015 WL 3953190, at *1 (E.D. La. June 29, 2015) (determining that, in light of petitioner’s conclusory objections, there was “no reason to reiterate the Magistrate Judge’s well- reasoned analysis”). The Court orders that Rushing’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _22nc_ day of March, 2023. Varn22_ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rushing v. Vannoy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rushing-v-vannoy-laed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack