Boyd v. Kelley, No. 5:2019cv00223 - Document 45 (E.D. Ark. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 21 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice and denying all requested relief; denying without prejudice 23 , 24 , 29 , 38 , 43 motions as moot; and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 9/30/2020. (jbh)

Download PDF
Boyd v. Kelley Doc. 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION THOMAS WAYLON BOYD v. PETITIONER Case No. 5:19-cv-00223 KGB/JTK WENDY KELLEY, Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 21). Plaintiff Thomas Waylon Boyd filed multiple objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations and several motions seeking specific relief (Dkt. Nos. 22–43). After careful review of the Proposed Findings and Recommendations and Mr. Boyd’s objections and other filings, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations as its findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 21). Many of Mr. Boyd’s objections are vague and confusing. The remainder of Mr. Boyd’s objections simply restate assertions raised in his petition for writ of habeas corpus or are unresponsive to his claim. The Court has adopted Judge Kearney’s analysis and reasoning as its own; the Court will not repeat that analysis with respect to Mr. Boyd’s restated objections. For these reasons, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations as its findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 21). Also before the Court are Mr. Boyd’s several pending motions: motion to progress and reply to Ms. Kelley’s response (Dkt. No. 23), motion to advance within offer of proof (Dkt. No. 24), motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 29), motion to extend time (Dkt. No. 38), and motion for summary judgment, to dismiss charges, and to collect judgment (Dkt. No. 43). Having dismissed Dockets.Justia.com with prejudice Mr. Boyd’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Court denies these motions without prejudice as moot (Dkt. Nos. 23, 24, 29, 38, 43). It is therefore ordered that: 1. The Court denies with prejudice Mr. Boyd’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and denies all requested relief. 2. The Court denies without prejudice Mr. Boyd’s remaining pending motions as moot (Dkt. Nos. 23, 24, 29, 38, 43). 3. The Court denies a certificate of appealability because the Court is not persuaded that Mr. Boyd can make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). It is so ordered this 30th day of September, 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.