Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-1755-L.
January 26, 2005
ORDER
This is a habeas case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, this action was referred to the United States magistrate judge for proposed findings and recommendation. On December 9, 2004, the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") were filed, to which Petitioner filed no objections.
The magistrate judge identified Petitioner's claims as: (1) his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) he pled guilty only because his attorney told him that he would receive probation upon such plea; (3) his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the sentence imposed; and 4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal because his appellate attorney filed a wholly frivolous appeal. Report at 2. The magistrate judge found that Petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief is barred by the one-year limitations period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (West 2003).
Having reviewed the pleadings, file and record in this case, and the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conconclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are accepted as those of the court. Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus is hereby denied, and this action is dismissed with prejudice.