Opinion
No. 4:03-CV-1334-A.
April 26, 2004
ORDER
Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein Carl Parhams, Jr., is petitioner and Douglas Dretke, Director, 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 April 1, 2004, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation, and ordered that the parties file objections, if any, thereto by April 22, 2004. On April 15, 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).
Through his objections, petitioner argues that he is actually innocent, and that his conviction is a total miscarriage of justice because he "was factually not a party to, or cognizant of any purchase and delivery of cocaine on November 12, 1998." Pet.'s Obj. at 2. However, petitioner's objections do not address the magistrate's conclusion that the petition is time barred. Accordingly,
The court accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge and ORDERS that the petition in this action be, and is hereby, dismissed as time barred.