The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan E. Dubois, J.
AND NOW , this 14th day of July, 2011, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner, Paul Q. Griffin, and the related submissions of the parties, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation ("R&R")of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski dated May 25, 2011, and Petitioner's Objections to R&R, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The R&R of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski dated May 25, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner's Objections to R&R are OVERRULED;
3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner, Paul Q. Griffin, is DISMISSED as UNTIMELY FILED; and,
4. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right or this Court's procedural rulings with respect to petitioner's claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
The decision of the Court is based on the following:
1. This case arises out of petitioner's conviction for third-degree murder and possession of a instrument of crime on April 29, 2002, in state court. On July 25, 2002, defendant was sentence to 19 to 38 years imprisonment for the third-degree murder conviction, and a consecutive one to five years of imprisonment for the possession of an instrument of crime conviction.
2. The procedural history of the case is detailed in the R&R of the Magistrate Judge and need not be repeated in this Order.
3. On September 6, 2010, petitioner filed the instant habeas petition, asserting the following claims:
a. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to properly question the Commonwealth's witnesses about making deals for false statements;
b. Ineffective assistance of counsel for not getting evidence from the gun if the victim and which was found next to his body; and,
c. Ineffective of counsel for not arguing that the sentence was excessive.
4. On May 25, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a R&R in which she concluded that the habeas petition was time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(a)-(d). Accordingly, the substantive grounds for ...