From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armour v. Fox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Jan 31, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-184 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-184

01-31-2012

CHARLES WILLIAM ARMOUR, Petitioner, v. JOHN FOX, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Charles William Armour, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Complex in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge recommends this petition be dismissed without prejudice.

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. No objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge were filed by the parties.

ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge's recommendation.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 31st day of January, 2012.

______________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Armour v. Fox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Jan 31, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-184 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2012)
Case details for

Armour v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES WILLIAM ARMOUR, Petitioner, v. JOHN FOX, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Date published: Jan 31, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-184 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2012)

Citing Cases

Adams v. St. Johns River Shipbuilding Co.

The Court finds that these expediters are not exempt as administrative employees, but that they are entitled…