Ramos v. Martin

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling petitioner's objections and adopting 2 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 1/27/12. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
EDGAR FERNANDO RODRIG RAMOS

§

VS.

§

M. MARTIN

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-658

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Edgar Fernando Rodrig Ramos, a federal prisoner confined in Beaumont, Texas,
brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus.
The Court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States
Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of
this Court. The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the petition.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the Court concludes the
objections are without merit. In support of his claims, petitioner cites Bond v. United States, U.S.
, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011). In Bond, the Supreme Court held that a person convicted of a federal
offense had standing to assert that Congress exceeded its power under the Tenth Amendment in
enacting a criminal statute. The Supreme Court did not hold that such a claim could be raised in a

§ 2241 petition, and the Court did not invalidate any federal criminal statutes. Blodgett v. Martin,
2011 WL 6187097, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2011) (unpublished). Petitioner also argues that the writ
of habeas corpus has been suspended if relief is not available to him under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or
§ 2241. This claim lacks merit. The savings clause under § 2255 does not violate the Suspension
Clause of the United States Constitution. Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, 305 F.3d 343,
346-47 (5th Cir. 2002).
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.

The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27 day of January, 2012.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2