ANTHONY MCMILLIAN
v.
RICKY D. DIXON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Anthony McMillian's 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas corpus petition was dismissed as untimely. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation that the petition failed to comply with the statute of limitations, which began running at the end of the 30-day period for seeking Florida Supreme Court review following the district court of appeal's affirming judgment.
The petition was untimely and properly dismissed. The §2254 statute of limitations clock started at the end of the 30-day period to seek Florida Supreme Court review, measured from when the district court of appeal issued its written opinion affirming the judgment, not from when discretionary review was actually denied or considered.
[1] A federal court reviews a magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo when objections are filed.
[2] A §2254 habeas petition is not timely filed when it is dismissed as untimely.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“§2254 clock" started at end of the 30-day period to seek Florida Supreme Court review when the defendant's judgment is affirmed by the district court of appeal in a written opinion rather than an unelaborated per curiam affirmance because "[t]he issue is not … whether the Florida Supreme Court likely would have accepted discretionary review; the issue is whether there was an opportunity for further review"”
Establishes the key principle for calculating when the §2254 statute of limitations begins to run in habeas cases
McMillian filed a §2254 habeas petition in federal court. The underlying state judgment was affirmed by Florida's district court of appeal in a writte…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certificate of Appealability Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) and Petitioner's objections (Doc. 17). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that Petitioner's §2254 habeas petition was not timely filed. See Bravo v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 2022 WL 17668456, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2022) (finding that "$2254 clock" started at end of the 30-day period to seek Florida Supreme Court review when the defendant's judgment is affirmed by the district court of appeal in a written opinion rather than an unelaborated per curiam affirmance because "[t]he issue is not whether the Florida Supreme Court likely would have accepted discretionary review; the issue is whether there was an opportunity for further review"), certificate of appealability denied, 2023 WL
Page 1 of 2
9324734 (11th Cir. July 13, 2023). The Court also agrees that a certificate of appealability should be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's §2254 habeas petition is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.
3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
4. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file.
DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2026.
T. KENT WETHERELL, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McMillian v. Dixon, 2022 WL 17668456 (N.D. Fla. 2026)…de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that Petitioner’s §2254 habeas petition was not timely filed. See Bravo v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2022 WL 17668456, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2022) (finding that “§2254 clock” started at end of the 30-day period to seek Florida Supreme Court review when the defendant’s judgment is affirmed by the district court of appeal in a written opinion rather than an unela…
-
Segwayne Kirk Anthony Goldson v. Dixon (N.D. Fla. 2025)…F ---PAGE 20--- Case 5:23-cv-00225-TKW-MAF Document 14 Filed 09/15/25 Therefore, it does not appear Goldson could have sought Florida Supreme Court review of this unelaborated opinion. Cf., e.g., Bravo v. Sec’y, Dep't of Corr., No. 1:22cv69-AW/MJF, 2022 WL 17668456, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 14 2022) (district court order adopting Report and Recommendation and explaining: "Bravo could have sought Florida Supreme Court review of the DCA's decision because that decision was neither an affirmance without opinion nor…
-
Jones v. Dixon (N.D. Fla. 2024)…ailable to Jones. This conclusion is consistent with that of numerous federal district courts in Florida that have addressed the same legal issue in the same habeas context on analogous facts. See Bravo v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 1:22cv69-AW-MJF, 2022 WL 17668456, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2022), certificate of appealability denied, No. 23-10204, 2023 WL 9324734 (11th Cir. July 13, 2023), cert. denied sub nom Bravo v. Dixon, No. 23-6587, 144 S. Ct. 1040 (Mar. 4, 2024); Hall v. Sec'y, Fla. ---PAGE 9--- Case…
Authorities Cited
- McMillian v. Dixon, 2022 WL 17668456 (N.D. Fla. 2026)