Adams v. Dretke

Full title: JOHN C. ADAMS, Petitioner, v. DOUGLAS DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

Date published: Apr 28, 2004

No. 4:03-CV-1212-A (N.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2004)

Opinion

No. 4:03-CV-1212-A.

April 28, 2004

ORDER

JOHN McBRYDE, District Judge

Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein John C. Adams is petitioner and Douglas Dretke, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, is respondent. This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 30, 2004, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation, and ordered that the parties file objections, if any, thereto by April 20, 2004. On April 21, 2004, petitioner filed his written objections. Respondent has not made any further response. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court makes a de novo determination of those portions of the proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objection is made. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980). The court is not addressing any nonspecific objections or any frivolous or conclusory objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).

The basis for several of petitioner's objections is the contention that he filed his federal habeas petition "for joinder with Michael Lorenz, in Civil Action No. 4:03-CV-294, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division." Pet'r's Objections at 2. The court is not aware of any authority, and petitioner has cited none, that would authorize him to join in habeas claims made by another petitioner. In any event, the objections based on the intent of petitioner do not make any sense. As for the remaining objections, as best the court can tell, petitioner contends that the State Board of Pardons and Paroles abused its discretion in denying him release to mandatory supervision. As found by the magistrate judge, however, petitioner has been afforded all process he was due. Accordingly,

The court accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge and ORDERS that the petition in this action be, and is hereby, denied.