Opinion
NO. 4:04-CV-160-A.
July 21, 2004
ORDER
Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein Keith O. Houser 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 June 29, 2004, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation, and ordered that the parties file objections, if any, thereto by July 20, 2004. On July 16, 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).
Petitioner raised, and the magistrate judge discussed, four grounds, to wit: sufficiency of the evidence, improper jury argument, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court, having reviewed the record de novo, finds that none of petitioner's grounds has merit. The court notes that it is not persuaded that petitioner raised or exhausted a ground based on legal insufficiency of the evidence. Such an argument has no merit in any event.
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.