Clark v. Daniels et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the petition be dismissed. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 8/4/14. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

TELASA CLARK,
Petitioner,
versus
CHARLES A. DANIELS,
Respondent.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-315

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Telasa Clark, a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont,
Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.
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, pleadings, and all available evidence. 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. Petitioner may not pursue habeas relief under § 2241 because
his claims do not meet the requirements set forth in Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d

893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Petitioner contends that his conviction is invalid in light of Alleyne v.
United States,

U.S.

, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), because his sentence was enhanced based on

the district court’s findings. Alleyne addresses sentencing issues. It is not a retrocatively available
Supreme Court decision indicating that petitioner was convicted of a non-existent offense.
Whittaker v. Chandler,

F. App’x

Martindale v. Chandler,

F. App’x

, 2014 WL 2940499, at *1 (5th Cir. July 1, 2014);
, 2014 WL 2767533, at *1 (5th Cir. June 19, 2014).
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.

Signed this date.
Aug 4, 2014

2