Alexander v. Dretke

Full title: HAYWOOD GEORGE ALEXANDER, Petitioner v. DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas

Date published: Apr 14, 2004

No. 3:02-CV-1566-D (N.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2004)

Opinion

No. 3:02-CV-1566-D

April 14, 2004

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAUL STICKNEY, Magistrate Judge

This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Supplemental Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition on July 23, 2002. On February 24, 2004, the undersigned magistrate judge issued findings, conclusions, and a recommendation that this case be dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. On March 4, 2004, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition without prejudice as moot.

Petitioner's petition challenges the legality of his conviction. He does not state why the petition is now moot. The Court finds the petition is barred by limitations and should be dismissed with prejudice. RECOMMENDATION:

The Court recommends that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice as barred by the one-year limitation period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Signed this 13 day of April, 2004.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings and recommendations on the parties. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings and recommendations must file and serve written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings and recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. The failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the district court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to proposed findings and recommendations within ten (10) days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).