Opinion
2:04-CV-0021.
April 8, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On January 28, 2004, petitioner ALBERTO RENE PACHECO filed with this Court a document entitled "Brief Procedural History of Case" which he characterizes as an application for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner appears to allege ineffective assistance of counsel.
On March 15, 2004, this Court entered an Order to Submit Form Petition requiring petitioner to file an "Amended Petition" utilizing the form petition adopted by the federal courts for the Northern District of Texas. The Court further ordered the Clerk to forward to petitioner such form. Petitioner was ordered to respond no later than April 5, 2004. In that Order, petitioner was advised that a failure to timely file an amended petition would result in a recommendation of dismissal.
As of this date, the Court has not received an amended petition from the petitioner. Petitioner has disregarded and failed to comply with a direct order from the Court, and for these reasons, a dismissal is warranted.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner ALBERTO RENE PACHECO be DISMISSED.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 by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Petitioner may object to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days after its date of filing. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b), 6(e). Any such objections shall be in the form of a written pleading entitled "Objections to the Report and Recommendation," 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. Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on the Magistrate Judge and all other parties. A party's failure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in this report shall bar an aggrieved party, 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.