IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOSEPH R. RAGAN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:22cv291-MW/ZCB

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent. _________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 17, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s objections, ECF No. 18. The report and recommendation explains in detail why Petitioner failed to seek relief under § 2254 before the one-year limitation period expired. Petitioner objects, noting that the “one-year period of limitation applies to the filing of a 2254 habeas corpus petition by an inmate in state custody . . . .” and that he was not “in custody” between October 2010 and July 2020 because he had been released on parole. ECF No. 18 at 1 (emphasis in original). Petitioner’s objection is incorrect. While on parole, Petitioner remained “in custody” for purposes of § 2254, and thus his parole status had no effect on the one-year limitation period with respect to his pending § 2254 petition. See Jones v. Cunningham,

, 242–43 (1963) (holding that a parolee remains “in custody” for purposes of federal habeas corpus

review); Givens v. St. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles,

, 419 n.1 (11th Cir. 2018) (applying Jones). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: The report and recommendation, ECF No. 17, is accepted and adopted, over the Petitioner’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Petitioner’s

habeas petition under

is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.” A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file. SO ORDERED on July 11, 2023.

s/Mark E. Walker ____ Chief United States District Judge