Rushing v. Vannoy ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DAVID RUSHING CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 21-929 STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. SECTION “R” (4) ORDER David Rushing’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was referred to Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Roby subsequently recommended dismissal of the petition as time-barred.1 Rushing did not object to Magistrate Judge Roby’s finding that his petition was time-barred. Instead, he filed a generic objection that addressed the merits of his claim.2 Therefore, the Court reviews Magistrate Judge Roby’s recommendation that the petition be dismissed as untimely for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Hines v. Texas, 76 F. App’x 564, 566 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Because [the plaintiff] did not raise this issue in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we review it for plain error.” (citing Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1 R. Doc. 17. 2 See generally R. Doc. 18. 1429)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the reeommendation.”). The Court finds no clear error. Thus, the Court adopts Magistrate Roby’s R&R as its opinion. Cf. Curington v. Cain, No. 13-5258, 2015 WL 3953190, at *1 (E.D. La. June 29, 2015) (determining that, in light of petitioner’s conclusory objections, there was “no reason to reiterate the Magistrate Judge’s well- reasoned analysis”). The Court orders that Rushing’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _22nc_ day of March, 2023. Varn22_ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE