Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

07-1009 - Baker v. Carlton

Download Files


Document in Context
07-1009 - Baker v. Carlton
February 11, 2008
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Upon consideration of the pleadings and the record in this case, it appears that the instant action is untimely. The undersigned respectfully recommends that 14 respondent's Motion to Dismiss be granted and that this action should be dismissed. Signed by Judge Joe Brown on 2/11/08. (jb) (cc: pltf by certified and regular mail) Modified on 2/11/08 (jb).
April 14, 2008
PDF | More
ORDER: Report and Recommendation 23is accepted in part and rejected in part. It is accepted insofar as the Magistrate Judge concluded that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody was not timely filed. The R&R is rejected insofar as the Magistrate Judge did not address petitioner's specific reasons for failing to file his petition within the required period of time. Case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration of petitioner's claim that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he has been diligent in pursuing his claims and there is no prejudice in allowing this case to go forward. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 4/14/08. (gi)
April 21, 2008
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the 14 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Howard Carlton be granted and that this action should be dismissed as untimely. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 4/21/08. (cc: pltf by reg and cert mail)(km)
July 30, 2008
PDF | More
ORDER adopting Report And Recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the entire record in this case, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that equitable tolling is not appropriate under the facts of this case. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: (1) The R & R 31 is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 14 is hereby GRANTED; and (3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 7/30/08. (tmw)