Willingham v. Payne

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

OSCAR WILLINGHAM PETITIONER

v. Case No. 6:22-cv-6106

DEXTER PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 10. Judge Bryant recommends that Respondent Dexter Payne’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) be granted and that Petitioner Oscar Willingham’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed with prejudice for being time barred by nearly nine years. Petitioner has submitted an objection, but it is neither timely nor specific and does not elevate the Court’s review from one for plain error to a review de novo.1 See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (specific objections shift a court’s 0F review from one which scrutinizes for plain error to one in which the issues are reviewed de novo); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon review, finding no clear error from the face of the record and that Judge Bryant’s conclusion is sound, the Court adopts the instant Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) in toto. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of April, 2023.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

1 Petitioner’s objection to the instant Report and Recommendation was due on February 9, 2023, but Petitioner did not mail his objection until February 16, 2023. ECF No. 11, p. 10. Also, Petitioner never addresses Judge Bryant’s conclusion that his petition is time barred. Instead, Petitioner simply provides a summary of the alleged grounds for his habeas petition.