Summary
rejecting Rule 60(b) argument that the petitioner's due process rights were violated when the court dismissed his § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust without addressing merits of claim
Summary of this case from Warner v. Dir., Tex. Dep't of Criminal JusticeOpinion
C.A. No. C-00-396.
August 22, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
On April 12, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge filed her Memorandum and Recommendation in this cause (D.E. 51). Objections were timely filed (D.E. 54). Petitioner's objections are without merit. Having reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge's memorandum and recommendation and the pleadings on file, this Court hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, petitioner's motion for relief from judgment (D.E. 43) is denied. Petitioner's motion to stay further proceedings on his motion for relief from judgment (D.E. 55) is denied as moot. Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel (D.E. 56) is granted. The Court appoints attorney William Edward May Jr. to serve as counsel for petitioner in this matter. Petitioner's motion for leave to use the original record on appeal (D.E. 57) is denied as premature.
ORDERED.