White v. Cockrell

Full title: MAURIE W. WHITE, Petitioner, VS. JANIE COCKRELL, Director, Texas…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas

Date published: Jan 29, 2003

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02-CV-1492-G (N.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2003)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02-CV-1492-G

January 29, 2003

ORDER

A. JOE FISH, Chief Judge, District

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, I am of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and that this action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by the one-year limitation

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that the clerk shall mail a copy of this judgment and of the order adopting the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge to petitioner and to counsel for respondent. period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D); Heiser v. Johnson, No. 00-10408 (5th Cir. June 8, 2001) (unpublished) (subsection 2244(d)(1)(D) — when a petitioner was or, with due diligence, should have been aware of the predicate facts of his habeas claims — applies in the parole-revocation context). See also Sonnier v. Johnson, 161 F.3d 941, 944 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (tolling under § 2244(d)(2)); Fields v. Johnson, 159 F.3d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1998) (same); Flanagan v. Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 202 (5th Cir. 1998) (computation of one-year period).