Opinion
Civil Action 3:02-CV-1492-G
January 29, 2003
ORDER
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 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 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D); Heiser v. Johnson, No. 00-10408 (5th Cir. June 8, 2001) (unpublished) (subsection 2244(d)(1)(D) — when a petitioner was or, with due diligence, should have been aware of the predicate facts of his habeas claims — applies in the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).