IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION

RUSSELL WAYNE BULLOCK, Cause No. CV 22-22-BU-BMM-JTJ

Petitioner, ORDER vs.

PETE BLUDWORTH, WARDEN CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL CENTER; AUSTIN KNUDSEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondents.

Petitioner Russell Wayne Bullock (“Bullock”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application under

, seeking habeas corpus relief. (Doc. 1.) United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered his Findings and Recommendations in this case on August 29, 2022. (Doc. 6.) Magistrate Judge Johnston recommended that this matter should be DISMISSED with prejudice as time-barred and procedurally deficient, that the Clerk of Court should be directed to enter by separate document a judgment in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner, and that a certificate of appealability should be DENIED. (Doc. 6.) Bullock filed an objection to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 11.) The Court reviews de novo those findings and recommendations to which a party makes an objection.

(b)(1)(C). Where a party’s objections constitute perfunctory responses that seek to engage the district court in a relitigation of the same arguments set forth in the complaint, however, the Court

reviews for clear error the applicable portions of the findings and recommendations. Rosling v. Kirkegard,

, at *3 (D. Mont. Feb. 21, 2014) (internal citations omitted). The Court also reviews for clear error the

portion of the Findings and Recommendations to which the party did not specifically object. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1981). The Court reviewed Magistrate Judge

Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations and adopts them in full for the reasons discussed below. Bullock objects to Magistrate Judge Johnston’s finding that Bullock’s petition should be dismissed as untimely. (Doc. 11.) The Court provided Bullock three

different ways to show cause why his petition should not be time-barred in its Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 3.) Bullock responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause on May 23, 2022. (Doc. 4.) Bullock did not dispute that his filing is untimely in his

response. He also did not show that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, but an extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented him from filing on time. Holland v. Florida,

(2010). Bullock did not then raise relevant health concerns or medical procedures as “extraordinary circumstances” to excuse his untimely habeas petition. (Doc. 4.) Bullock now asserts that his untimely filing was due to health reasons, including two heart attacks and heart surgery recovery. (Doc. 11 at 1.) Bullock does not dispute

that his filing in this Court is untimely. (Id.) Bullock fails to provide evidence or documentation of his medical conditions and surgery. Bullock did file Exhibits attached to his petition (Doc. 1-2) containing over 150 pages, some of which include

personal medical records. None of those personal medical records, however, are specific to cardiac issues or surgery. The Court reviewed de novo Magistrate Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations. The Court determines that Bullock

failed to present an “extraordinary circumstance” that prevented him from filing on time. Bullock’s objections otherwise advance the same arguments that he raised before. The Court will not engage in Bullock’s attempt to reargue the same issues.

The Court reviewed Magistrate Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations for clear error. The Court finds no error. Bullock did not raise any specific objections to Magistrate Judge Johnston’s

finding that a certificate of appealability should be denied. (See Doc. 11.) This Court’s review is therefore limited to clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,

. The Court finds no legal error in Magistrate Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations regarding a certificate of appealability. IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 6) are ADOPTED IN FULL. 1. Bullock’s Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment of dismissal by separate document; and 3. Acertificate of appealability is DENIED. DATED this 15th day of November, 2022.

“5 , [2 UT AP ; An Give f “Ui Uu—— United States District Court