O'Neill v. King et al
ORDER ADOPTING 32 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by District Judge Martha Vazquez: DENYING AS MOOT 21 ORDER on Motion for Order; DENYING AS MOOT 22 ORDER on Motion for Trial; DENYING AS MOOT 25 ORDER on Motion for Order; DENYING AS MOOT 26 OR DER on Motion for Order; DENYING AS MOOT 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; DENYING AS MOOT 28 ORDER on Motion for Order; DENYING AS MOOT 31 ORDER on Motion for Trial. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. No. 32 ) is ADOPTED. 2. Petitioner's claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. 3. All of Petitioner's pending Motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. (gr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Civ. No. 15-1050 MV/GJF
JOE GARCIA, Warden,
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Daniel O’Neill’s application for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”). On September 29,
2016, Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Fouratt filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition (“PFRD”) advising that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s claims.
Doc. No. 32.
Specifically, he found that Petitioner had set forth the following putative ground for relief:
Petitioner’s complaint is that he was unlawfully denied a state parole hearing in
2003 and 2004 and that the parole he ultimately received in 2006 should have
been granted to him back in 2003. Had that happened, he implicitly contends, he
would have started serving his current 33-year sentence sooner and been that
much closer to its expiration than he is now. Petitioner claims that this turn of
events has subjected him to “cruel and unusual punishment and illegal process
and every violation of the Constitution.”
PFRD at 1 (quotation marks in original). According to Judge Fouratt’s analysis, Petitioner’s
claim fails at the threshold level because it is time-barred and because Petitioner failed to exhaust
his available state remedies. Id. at 3-6. Even if this Court were to disregard these procedural
bars, Judge Fouratt recommended that this Court deny Petitioner’s claim on the merits, as “the
record is manifestly and unmistakably clear that the Parole Board complied with the order and
granted Petitioner the parole hearings the law accorded him.” Id. at 5.
On October 20, 2016, Petitioner filed Objections to Judge Fouratt’s PFRD. Doc. No. 33.
Unfortunately, these Objections are hardly challenges to any findings or recommendations made
by Judge Fouratt. Rather, they consist of unsupported statements like “[Petitioner] was wronged
and his case is strong and can prevail because he has a bona-fide [sic] grounds,” id. at 1, and
“[Petitioner] was unjustly treated in the New Mexico judicial system.”
Id. at 3. Even when
Petitioner makes what appears to possibly represent a cognizable objection by claiming Judge
Fouratt’s PFRD “is based on bias,” a closer inspection reveals that he is really attacking the
government itself – rather than the PFRD – as he explains (albeit unclearly) that this bias is
based “on [a] basic longstanding panel and rotating system that pertects [sic] the guilty of some .
. . under this government administration.” Id. at 2.
Thus, despite being given notice of his opportunity to do so, Plaintiff has failed to file any
objection to the PFRD itself. Because he was given proper notice, which he obviously received,
his failure to propound competent objections now constitutes an absolute waiver of the right to
do so. Upon this Court’s review of the record, and having seen no proper objections, the Court
concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s finding and recommendations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. No.
32) is ADOPTED.
2. Petitioner’s claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
3. All of Petitioner’s pending Motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
THE HONORABLE MARTHA VAZQUEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?