1

Although Petitioner does not number these exhibits, they are located directly after

exhibit D.

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge -Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOHNNY RAY PATTON, 1135013, )

Petitioner, )

v. ) No. 3:06-CV-424-P

) (Consolidated with

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director ) 3:06-CV-425-P

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, ) 3:06-CV-426-P

Correctional Institutions Division ) 3:06-CV-430-P)

Respondent. ) ECF

)

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the

provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), as implemented by an order of the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:

On April 26, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for stay and abeyance. He argues that

habeas issues are currently pending in state court. Petitioner submits a May 10, 2006, order from

the trial court designating issues in his state habeas petition. (Motion for Stay/Abeyance, Ex. 1). 

He also submits, however, an August 1, 2006, letter from the trial judge instructing the Court of

Appeals to disregard his May 10, 2006, order designating issues stating the order was in error. 

(Petitioner’s June 18, 2007, Reply, Ex. E, F),1

 The Court of Criminal Appeals had already

denied Petitioner’s habeas petitions. Petitioner argues his state habeas petitions remain pending

because he filed a motion to amend the petitions on July 24, 2006.

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00424-P Document 28 Filed 07/06/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID 232
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge -Page 2

On June 6, 2007, Respondent filed his response to the motion for stay/abeyance. 

Respondent included affidavits stating that Petitioner has no state habeas issues pending. 

Additionally, the Court accessed the Court of Criminal Appeals’ website at

www.cca.courts.state.tx.us. The website shows that there are no habeas petitions currently

pending for Petitioner. The Court therefore recommends that the motion for stay/abeyance be

denied 

Signed this 6th day of July, 2007.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00424-P Document 28 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID 233
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge -Page 3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these findings, conclusions and

recommendation on the parties. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any

party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and

file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections

must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are

being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A

party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and

recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to

the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with

a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of

the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error.

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00424-P Document 28 Filed 07/06/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID 234