IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

BRADLEY BURCHFIELD PETITIONER

v. Case No. 4:21-cv-04018

DEXTER PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction RESPONDENT

ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed on July 2, 2021, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 15). Petitioner filed objections. (ECF No. 16). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration. On October 20, 2016, Petitioner pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia in Sevier County Circuit Court in Sevier County, Arkansas. Petitioner was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal. On December 12, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence and a Rule 37 Petition. Both were dismissed by the Sevier County Circuit Court. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal. In December 2019, Petitioner filed a second petition to correct an illegal sentence and a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Sevier County Circuit Court. These matters are currently pending in state court. On March 5, 2021, Petitioner filed a Petition under

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. ECF No. 1. Petitioner requests that he be released from parole because he has paid all of the fees, fines, and costs associated with his conviction. Respondent argues that this matter is time-barred and should be dismissed. Judge Bryant recommends that this petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice as this matter is time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). The Court may designate a magistrate judge to hear pre- and post-trial matters and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition.

(b)(1). After conducting an appropriate review of the report and recommendation, the Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge . . . or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”

(b)(1). “[T]he specific standard of review depends, in the first instance, upon whether or not a party has objected to portions of the report and recommendation.” Anderson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc’y,

(N.D. Iowa 2018). Generally, “objections must be timely and specific” to trigger de novo review. Thompson v. Nix,

(8th Cir. 1990). The Court applies a liberal construction when determining whether

pro se objections are specific. Hudson v. Gammon,

(8th Cir. 1995). Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation’s finding that his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (ECF No. 1) should be dismissed. Petitioner argues that his second petition to correct an illegal sentence and petition for writ of habeas corpus is still pending in state court, and thus he cannot appeal those cases. Additionally, Petitioner argues that Isopropyl Benzylamine is a legal substance, the Court has jurisdiction to overturn his state conviction, and the Sentencing Reform Act voted to do away with a parole system. Petitioner does not provide any exception or argument for Judge Bryant’s findings regarding the statute of limitations or a tolling provision. Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are not specific to trigger de novo review. Being well and sufficiently advised and finding no clear error on the face of the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) in toto. The instant petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Additionally, the Court has determined

that no Certificate of Appealability will be issued in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of August, 2021.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge