Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02003/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

MARK DUANE WRIGHT PETITIONER

v. Civil No. 05-2003

LARRY NORRIS, Director,

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

ORDER

NOW on this 27th day of September 2005, the above referenced

matter comes before the Court, and, being well and sufficiently

advised, the Court finds as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(document #9) was filed by Judge Beverly Stites Jones in the above

referenced matter on May 25, 2005. Subsequently, on June 6, 2005,

the petitioner filed his Objections to Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation (document #10). 

2. On September 20, 2005, a hearing was held during which

oral arguments were presented by both counsel for the petitioner

and counsel for the respondent. 

3. Having reviewed the pleadings of the parties, and

considered the arguments of counsel and all other matters of

relevance before it, the Court finds:

* the petitioner procedurally defaulted his direct appeal

to the Arkansas state appellate courts. This Court must therefore

refrain from review of petitioner’s claims as they were not

properly presented at the state level and there has been no: 1)

Case 2:05-cv-02003-JLH Document 13 Filed 09/27/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

showing of “cause” for the default and resulting “prejudice” or 2)

showing of actual innocence. See Fann v. Bowersox, 247 F.3d 841

(8 Cir. 2001); th

* the petitioner admittedly did not file a claim for

ineffective assistance of counsel under Rule 37 of the Arkansas

Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although the petitioner argues that

the Arkansas courts “treated” his appeal as a claim under Rule 37,

that argument is not supported by the record; and, 

* although the petitioner argues that his writ for habeas

corpus should be granted because he has been deprived his

constitutional right to appellate review, the cited case law,

including Hendricks v. Lock, 238 F.3d 985 (8 Cir. 2001), and Bell th

v. Lockhart, 795 F.2d 655 (8 Cir. 1986), does not support th

petitioner’s argument. 

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

should be, and it hereby is, adopted in toto. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth

therein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendation is

adopted in toto. Accordingly, the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus is denied and dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-02003-JLH Document 13 Filed 09/27/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>