McShon v. Cockrell

Full title: LaCONCHA SOWETO McSHON, Petitioner v. JANIE COCKRELL, Director, Texas…

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

Date published: Feb 19, 2004

2:03-CV-0215 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2004)

Opinion

2:03-CV-0215

February 19, 2004

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CLINTON AVERITTE, Magistrate Judge

Petitioner LaCONCHA SOWETO McSHON has filed with this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a prison disciplinary case. In order to challenge a prison disciplinary adjudication by way of a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must, at a minimum, be eligible for mandatory supervised release and have received a punishment sanction which included forfeiture of previously accrued good time credits. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000). In this case, petitioner lost 30 days good time, however, petitioner is not eligible for mandatory release due to his four convictions for the first degree felony offense of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 508.149 (Vernon 1998).

RECOMMENDATION

It is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner LaCONCHA SOWETO McSHON be DENIED.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE and NOTIFICATION OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a file-marked copy of this Report and Recommendation to petitioner utilizing the inmate correspondence card if petitioner's last known address is a prison unit, or by certified mail, return receipt requested, if petitioner has provided the Court with a non-institutional address.

Any party who wishes to make objections to this Report and Recommendation must make such objections within fourteen (14) days after the filing thereof. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Rule 8(b)(3) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b), 6(e). Any such objections shall be in writing and shall specifically identify the portions of the findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objection is made, and set out fully the basis for each objection. Any objecting party shall file written objections with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party's failure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in the original Report and Recommendation shall bar him, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions set forth in this report and accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.