Antoniello v. Kelley, No. 5:2019cv00003 - Document 21 (E.D. Ark. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 18 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying Mr. Swift's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismissing with prejudice this case; declining to issue a certificate of appealability; denying as moot Mr. Swift's 12 motion to stay habeas proceedings; and denying as moot Mr. Swift's 20 motion for status. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 1/27/2020. (jbh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION RONALD ANTHONY ANTONIELLO ADC #165855 v. PETITIONER Case No. 5:19-cv-00003-KGB-JTK WENDY KELLEY, Director of Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER The Court has received the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome Kearney (Dkt. No. 18). Plaintiff Ronald Anthony Antoniello filed an objection to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 19). After a review of the Proposed Findings and Recommendations and Mr. Antoniello’s objection, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 18). Mr. Antoniello raises three objections (Dkt. No. 19); however, each objection restates a claim that Mr. Antoniello made in his brief in support of federal habeas corpus relief (Dkt. No. 2) or in his motion to stay habeas proceedings (Dkt. No. 12). Judge Kearney properly addressed each of these claims in the Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 18). The Court has adopted Judge Kearney’s analysis and reasoning as its own; the Court will not repeat that analysis with respect to Mr. Antoniello’s objections. For these reasons, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations as its findings in all respects. The Court dismisses with prejudice Mr. Antoniello’s claims. The Court denies as moot Mr. Antoniello’s motion to stay habeas proceedings and motion for status (Dkt. Nos. 12, 20). It is therefore ordered that: 1. The Court adopts in their entirety the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome Kearney (Dkt. No. 18); 2. The Court denies Mr. Swift’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismisses with prejudice this case; 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(1)- (2); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts; 4. The Court denies as moot Mr. Swift’s motion to stay habeas proceedings (Dkt. No. 12); and 5. The Court denies as moot Mr. Swift’s motion for status (Dkt. No. 20). It is so ordered this 27th day of January, 2020. __________________________________ Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
