From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PONS v. DRETKE

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
Oct 18, 2005
No. 4:05-CV-237-A (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2005)

Opinion

No. 4:05-CV-237-A.

October 18, 2005


ORDER


Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein Jorge L. Pons, 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 September 1, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation, and ordered that the parties file objections, if any, thereto by September 22, 2005. On October 11, 2005, 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 filed his objections beyond the magistrate judge's deadline but avers he mailed them to the court on September 20, 2005. See Pet'r Objections at 9. Thus, the court concludes that the objections should be considered. See Thompson v. Raspberry, 993 F.2d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1993).

After reviewing petitioner's objections, the court concludes that no specific objections are contained therein. In fact, petitioner's objections wholly fail to address the grounds upon which the magistrate judge premised his recommendation; namely, petitioner's failure to proffer justifications for his state procedural default that would make the court's exercise of jurisdiction appropriate. See Henderson v. Cockrell, 333 F.3d 592, 605 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1163 (2004). Therefore,

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.


Summaries of

PONS v. DRETKE

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
Oct 18, 2005
No. 4:05-CV-237-A (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2005)
Case details for

PONS v. DRETKE

Case Details

Full title:JORGE L. PONS, JR., Petitioner, v. DOUGLAS DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

Date published: Oct 18, 2005

Citations

No. 4:05-CV-237-A (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2005)