Filed: Mar. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MARCIA A. CRONE , District Judge . Petitioner William Earl Durham, a prisoner confined at the Ramsey I Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas,
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MARCIA A. CRONE , District Judge . Petitioner William Earl Durham, a prisoner confined at the Ramsey I Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, f..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARCIA A. CRONE, District Judge.
Petitioner William Earl Durham, a prisoner confined at the Ramsey I Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge recommends denying petitioner's motion for injunctive relief.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. No objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge were filed by the parties.
ORDER
Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge (#31) is ADOPTED. Petitioner's motion for injunctive relief (#28) is DENIED.
