IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

TYRONE FITZGERALD BODY,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:24-CV-785-CWR-ASH SUPERINTENDENT JOHN OWEING,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant John Oweing filed a motion to dismiss. Docket No. 11. After reviewing the briefing on that motion, the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendations. Docket No. 17. The Court now considers the objection Plaintiff Tyrone Body lodged against the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations. Docket No. 18. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Mr. Body’s petition is time-barred under

(d)(1)(A). In his objection, Plaintiff reiterates his claim of actual innocence, challenging evidence presented at trial. It is true that “actual innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass” when his claim is otherwise barred by “expiration of the statute of limitations.” McQuiggin v. Perkins,

(2013). “An actual-innocence claim is only established when it is shown that, in the light of newly- discovered evidence, ‘it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Floyd v. Vannoy,

(5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Schlup v. Delo,

(1995)). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Mr. Body presented no new evidence suggesting he is actually innocent of the crime of conviction. He again fails to do so in his objection to the Report and Recommendations. In his objection, Mr. Body regurgitates the same challenges to evidence presented at trial that the Magistrate Judge considered in preparing his Report and Recommendations. Compare Docket No. 13 at 5, 8-9 (challenging the credibility of trial testimony provided by

Kanosha Brown and Deputy Jermaine Hamlin) with Docket No. 18 at 1-2 (same). Additionally, Mr. Body attaches to his objection an offense report that would have been available before trial. Docket No. 18-1. This too is not new evidence. Therefore, Mr. Body is not entitled to the actual-innocence exception to the time bar. For these reasons, the objection is overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted as this Court’s own findings. A separate Final Judgment shall issue. SO ORDERED, this the 27th day of October 2025. s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE