Robinson v. State of Arkansas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ROBERT EARL ROBINSON 	PETITIONER
v. 	Case No. 1:24-cv-1084
STATE OF ARKANSAS 	RESPONDENT
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Barry A.
Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 11. Judge
Bryant recommends that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Successive Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (ECF No. 10) be granted and that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF
No. 1) be dismissed.0F
1 	Judge Bryant explains that the Court previously dismissed an identical
petition from Petitioner with prejudice1F
2 and that Petitioner failed to obtain the required
certification from the Eighth Circuit to bring the successive petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Judge Bryant notes that without such a certificate, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter.
See, e.g., Boykin v. United States, 242 F.3d 373 (8th Cir. 2000). Judge Bryant further recommends
that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a) that any appeal from such a dismissal would
not be taken in good faith.
Petitioner filed a timely objection. ECF No. 13. However, Petitioner’s objection does not
address the substance of the R&R. 	Instead, Petitioner simply reiterates the allegations and
arguments underlying his petition. 	Without a specific objection, the Court is only required to
review Judge Bryant’s R&R for clear error. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir.
1 Judge Bryant notes that though Petitioner labeled the State of Arkansas as the respondent for his petition, the proper
respondent for such petitions is Dexter Payne, the Director of the Arkansas Division of Correction.
2 Robinson v. Payne, 1:23-cv-1096-SOH, ECF No. 21.
Case 1:24-cv-01084-SOH Document 14 Filed 02/14/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
1994) (noting that a specific objection is necessary to require a de novo review of a magistrate’s
recommendation instead of a review for clear error).
Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Bryant’s
reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 11) in toto. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a) that any appeal from such a dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of February, 2025.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-01084-SOH Document 14 Filed 02/14/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>