DeLaCruz v. Quarterman, No. 4:2008cv00263 - Document 23 (N.D. Tex. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations, The Court, after de novo review, concludes that the Petitioners objections must be overruled, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 2/18/2009) (drh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DeLaCruz v. Quarterman Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION STEVEN RAY DELACRUZ, VS. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, T.D.C.J. Correctional Institutions Div. § § § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:08-CV-263-Y § § § § ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In this action brought by petitioner Steven Ray DeLaCruz under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court has made an independent review of the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause: 1. The pleadings and record; 2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on December 29, 2009; and 3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on February 17, 2009. The Court, after de novo review, concludes that the Petitioner’s objections must be overruled, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions. Petitioner Steven Ray DeLaCruz’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, except as to any application of the federal statute of limitations or other federal procedural bar that may apply.1 SIGNED February 18, 2009. ____________________________ TERRY R. MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 A one-year statute of limitations is now applicable to the filing of noncapital § 2254 habeas corpus petitions in federal court. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1-4)(West 2006). The statute of limitations is tolled, however, while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(2)(West 2006). Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
