Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-0484-L
October 31, 2001
ORDER
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in implementation thereof, this action was referred to the magistrate judge for proposed findings and recommendation. On September 25, 2001, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge were filed. On October 9, 2001, Defendant filed his objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.
Although Petitioner objects to the recommendation that this case be dismissed, he does not object to any of the magistrate judge's specific findings. Instead, Petitioner requests that the court delay its ruling in this case so that he may seek further review of his criminal appeal because he "feels that the United States 5th District Court of Texas (sic) did not carefully review all the area (sic) in this case concerning all errors and facts, which prejudice the Petitioner." Petitioner's Objections at 1. This is simply not enough to justify the relief requested, especially in light of the procedural challenges Petitioner will undoubtedly face should he seek further review of his criminal appeal. Petitioner presents no compelling reason for the court to delay its ruling in this case. Petitioner's request to delay review of his habeas petition is therefore denied.
After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and record in this case, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge, and Petitioner's objections thereto, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are correct. Plaintiff's objections are overruled, and the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are accepted as the findings and conclusions of the court. Accordingly, Petitioner's Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, is hereby denied, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
It is so ordered