Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bonds v. Davis, 3:18-cv-1299-K-BN. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. Texas Number: infdco20190314e38 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2019
Summary: ORDER WITHDRAWING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING MOTION TO FILE A REPLY DAVID L. HORAN , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner Shelton L. Bonds ("Bonds") has filed a Motion for Permission to Refile his Traverse to the State's Response. See Dkt. No. 18. Bonds states that he timely submitted his traverse/reply to the Respondent's response but that it was not filed by the Court. A review of the docket shows that the Respondent filed a
More

ORDER WITHDRAWING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING MOTION TO FILE A REPLY

Petitioner Shelton L. Bonds ("Bonds") has filed a Motion for Permission to Refile his Traverse to the State's Response. See Dkt. No. 18. Bonds states that he timely submitted his traverse/reply to the Respondent's response but that it was not filed by the Court. A review of the docket shows that the Respondent filed a response to Bonds's Section 2254 habeas petition on September 5, 2018, see Dkt. No. 13, and that although the Court granted Bonds's motion for an extension of time to file a reply on October 11, 2018, see Dkt. No. 15, no reply was filed. On March 11, 2019, the Court filed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in this case. See Dkt. No. 17.

However, in the interest of justice, the Court GRANTS Bonds's request to file his traverse. The Clerk shall file Bonds's Traverse to the Respondent's Answer, Dkt. No. 18-1, as his reply to the Respondent's response.

The Clerk shall additionally WITHDRAW the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. See Dkt. No. 17.

Bonds's reply to the Respondent's response will be considered in the resolution of this case.

Finally, although Bonds requests that the Court require either the TDCJ-CID or the Respondent provide the Court with a copy of his reply, see Dkt. No. 18 at 2, the Court finds this to be unnecessary. A copy of the reply was attached to Bonds's motion. See Dkt. No. 18-1.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer