MORGAN v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID (E.D.Tex. 7-6-2011)

The above-entitled and numbered petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Charles Everingham IV. The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration. Petitioner has filed objections.

Having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner to the Report, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and Petitioner's objections are without merit. Specifically, Petitioner essentially repeats his contentions about the timeliness of his petition, without actually addressing the findings of the Magistrate Judge. He simply appears to assert that the filing dates of his state habeas application were manipulated and that there is "zero" credibility in "logging" such documents, while accusing court personnel of "deliberately delay[ing]" his filings. Objections at 1-2. However, he offers nothing to substantiate these claims. He also contends that his petition deserves a "thurough [sic] review and investigation," id. at 2, despite the finding that it is time-barred. There is no merit to these claims. Petitioner also requests a certificate of appealability, which the Court will deny for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is therefore

ORDERED that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.