Anthony Williams v. Warden Mark Agboasi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBANY DIVISION ANTHONY WILLIAMS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 1:25-CV-44 (LAG) : Warden MARK AGBOASI, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation (R&R). (Doc. 26). For the reasons below, the R&R is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

On March 13, 2025, Petitioner Anthony Williams, an inmate at Dooly State Prison in Unadilla, Georgia, filed a pro se application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely. (Doc. 15).

Petitioner then filed a motion seeking to invoke the equitable tolling doctrine as well as an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 19). On August 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending that Respondent’s Motion be granted, Petitioner’s Motions be denied, and the Petition be dismissed as untimely. (See generally Doc. 26). The R&R triggered the fourteen-day period provided under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) for the Parties to file written objections. Neither party filed an objection. (See Docket).

District courts must “conduct a careful and complete review” to determine “whether to accept, reject, or modify” a magistrate judge’s order and recommendation. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Unobjected-to portions of the R&R are reviewed for clear error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), (b)(3). If necessary, the Court may review factual issues de novo “to aid its review of a magistrate’s report.” Wainwright, 681 F.2d at 732. Here, because no Party objected to the R&R, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Upon full review and consideration of the record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 26) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and made the Order of this Court for the reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion (Doc. 15) is GRANTED, Petitioner’s Motions (Doc. 19) are DENIED, and the Petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED, this 26th day of February, 2026.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT