1

See Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 376-78 (5th Cir. 1998) (a prisoner’s federal habeas corpus petition is deemed filed

when he delivers the petition to prison officials for mailing to the district court).

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

WARREN DUANE TRACY, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § 2:05-CV-0037

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal §

Justice, Institutional Division, §

§

Respondent. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AS TIME BARRED UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)

Came this day for consideration the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in

State Custody filed by petitioner WARREN DUANE TRACY on February 2, 2005.1

 By his

habeas application, petitioner appears to be challenging a January 25, 2002 conviction for the

offense of enhanced felony D.W.I. out of the 84th Judicial District Court of Hutchinson County,

Texas.

Respondent filed his response on June 13, 2005 wherein he fully and accurately briefed

the issue of limitations. Respondent is correct in his conclusion that the petitioner’s habeas

application is time barred. Therefore, it is the opinion of the undersigned United States

Magistrate Judge that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus should be DISMISSED

as time barred.

 

 Case 2:05-cv-00037-J Document 14 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 44
HAB54\R&R\TRACY37.SOL:3 Page 2 of 3

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States

Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

filed by petitioner WARREN DUANE TRACY be DISMISSED as time barred.

IV.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a file-marked copy of this Report and 

Recommendation to petitioner by the most efficient means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

ENTERED this 14th day of June 2005.

 _______________________________

 CLINTON E. AVERITTE

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In

the event a party wishes to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing

objections is eleven (11) days from the date of filing as indicated by the file mark on the first

page of this recommendation. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and the

parties are allowed a 3-day service by mail extension, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Therefore, any

objections must be filed on or before the fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is

filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); R. 4(a)(1) of Miscellaneous Order No. 6, as

authorized by Local Rule 3.1, Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Northern

District of Texas. 

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the

Report and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United

States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party’s failure to

timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation

 

 Case 2:05-cv-00037-J Document 14 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 45
HAB54\R&R\TRACY37.SOL:3 Page 3 of 3

contained in this report shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from

attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and

recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge in this report and accepted by the district

court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996);

Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).

 

 Case 2:05-cv-00037-J Document 14 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 46