Lowe v. Ames, No. 2:2020cv00569 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER directing that Petitioner's 10 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections is granted; the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the magistrate judge are not adopted; the matter be referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/4/2021. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record; the United States Magistrate Judge) (btm) M
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lowe v. Ames Doc. 18 Case 2:20-cv-00569 Document 18 Filed 08/04/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 348 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON KEITH W.R. LOWE, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00569 DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent. ORDER Pending is petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed on August 28, 2020. No. 1. ECF Also pending is petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections, filed on December 23, 2020. ECF No. 10. This action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On December 10, 2020, the magistrate judge entered his PF&R recommending that the court dismiss petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus with prejudice unless petitioner could demonstrate “that his petition was timely filed or that circumstances exist which would permit equitable tolling for the limitation period.” PF&R at 5. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00569 Document 18 Filed 08/04/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 349 For good cause shown, petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file objections is granted to January 5, 2021. Further, petitioner having filed such objections on January 5, 2021, raising circumstances which may potentially allow for equitable tolling of his petition, the court for that reason declines to adopt the PF&R and again refers this matter to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections be, and hereby is, granted; 2. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the magistrate judge be, and hereby are, not adopted; and 3. The matter be, and hereby is, referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this memorandum opinion and order to plaintiff, all counsel of record, and the United States Magistrate Judge. Enter: August 4, 2021 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.
