-LRA Readus v. Sparkman, No. 3:2010cv00442 - Document 7 (S.D. Miss. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 5 Report and Recommendations. A Final Judgment dismissing this case shall be entered. A Certificate of Appealability should not issue. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 12-16-10 (Lewis, Nijah)

Download PDF
-LRA Readus v. Sparkman Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION KENNETH READUS, #103125 PETITIONER VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-cv-442-WHB-LRA EMMITT SPARKMAN RESPONDENT OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. After considering the Report and Recommendation1 and the other pleadings in this case, the Court finds it should be adopted as the finding of this Court. I. Discussion On August 11, 2010, Petitioner, Kenneth Readus (“Readus”), filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”).2 Thereafter, Respondent, Emmitt Sparkman (“Sparkman”), filed a motion seeking dismissal of the Petition on the basis that is was untimely. On 1 required to file objections to the Report before November 15, 2010. On Petitioner’s filing objections was extended to December have been filed. 2 the See The parties were and Recommendation on or motion, the deadline for 8, 2010. No objections As Readus is proceeding in this case pro se, allegations in his pleadings have been liberally construed. United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994). Dockets.Justia.com review, Judge Anderson entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Petition be dismissed as untimely. R & R [Docket No. 5]. See In the R & R, Judge Anderson found that to be timely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), Readus was required to file his Petition for federal habeas relief on or before April 8, 2010. R & R, at 4. 2010, See As Readus’s Petition was not filed until August 11, Judge Anderson found, Petition was time barred. and this Court agrees, that the See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (providing persons in custody pursuant to a state court judgment a one-year period in which to seek federal habeas corpus relief). Judge Anderson also found, and again this Court agrees, that there was no showing that Readus had been pursuing his rights diligently or that extraordinary circumstances had prevented him from timely filing his Petition. After reviewing the Petition and the R & R, the Court agrees that the Petition is time barred and should be dismissed for that reason. Accordingly, the Court will adopt Judge Anderson’s R & R recommending dismissal of this case. For the foregoing reasons: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the November 1, 2010, Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson [Docket No. 5], which recommends dismissal of this case, is hereby adopted as the finding of this Court. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of Respondent to Dismiss [Docket No. 4] is hereby granted. A Final Judgment dismissing this case shall be entered this day. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability should not issue. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. SO ORDERED this the 16th day of December, 2010. s/ William H. Barbour, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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.