Opinion
No. 4:04-CV-308-A.
October 14, 2004
ORDER
Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein Jake Manuel Thurman is petitioner and Douglas Dretke is respondent. This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2004, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation, and ordered that the parties file objections, if any, thereto by October 13, 2004. On October 12, 2004, petitioner filed his written objections. Respondent did not timely file objections. 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).
Citations to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation issued by the United States Magistrate Judge will be "FCR."
The court is not considering respondent's late-filed objections.
Although petitioner has made numerous objections, few of them are directed to the magistrate judge's proposed findings. The bulk of the objections are directed to the actions of the state courts, to claims that were not brought in his federal habeas petition, and to the state of the law in general. Those objections that are directed to the magistrate judge's proposed findings are essentially repetitions of the arguments in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed April 26, 2004, and his reply, filed August 30, 2004. After reviewing petitioner's objections, the magistrate judge's proposed findings, and applicable authority, the court concludes that the all of the grounds for petitioner's relevant objections are adequately addressed in the magistrate judge's proposed findings. Therefore,
The petition consists of a preprinted "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody," numbered pages one through nine, to which is attached additional typewritten pages numbered one through seventeen.
With regard to petitioner's claim that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a bottle of wine for demonstrative purposes, see FCR at 7-8, the court may not grant habeas relief for an erroneous evidentiary ruling unless the error results in a "denial of fundamental fairness" under the Due Process Clause. E.g. Neal v. Cain, 141 F.3d 207, 214 (5th Cir. 1998). In addition to petitioner's evidentiary claim being procedurally barred, FCR at 8, the court concludes that any error does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
The court accepts the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge and ORDERS that the petition in this action be, and is hereby, denied.