No. 3:03-CV-972-K
January 21, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PAUL STICKNEY, Magistrate Judge
This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
On May 8, 2003, Petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges his order of deportation to Nigeria and the setting of his bond at $10,000. On April 18, 2003, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, challenging the same deportation order and bond amount. See Oyelude v. United States Attorney General, et al., 3:03-CV-801-K. That case was transferred to the Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division, and is currently pending. See Oyelude v. United States Attorney General, et al., 1:03-CV-95-C.
The current petition is duplicative of the earlier filed case that is now pending in the Abilene Division. The Court therefore recommends that this case be dismissed. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the petition be dismissed as duplicative.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on Plaintiff. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation 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, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten 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. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).