Woods v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 63 . It is accordingly ORDERED the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED. (Motion(s) 63 , 65 terminated). Signed by Chief District Judge Amos L Mazzant on 3/10/2025. (xl)

Case 4:22-cv-00004-ALM-AGD

Document 68
1741

Filed 03/10/25

Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
ELIJAH DECOLE WOODS, #2107168
VS.
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22cv4

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) (Dkt.
#63) concluding that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be denied and the case should
be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner filed objections. (Dkt. #66).
In the objections, Petitioner complains that the Magistrate Judge rephrased his claims and
then addressed only a part of the claim or an entirely different claim. (Dkt. #66, p. 1). Petitioner
does not provide any further specifics or argument in support of his objection. Review of the
§ 2254 petition and memorandum in support of the § 2254 petition reflects that the Magistrate
Judge appropriately considered Petitioner’s claims raised in his petition. Petitioner’s objection is
conclusory and without merit.
Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Claim 2 is unexhausted. (Dkt.
#66, p. 1). In Claim 2, Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
the admission of State’s Exhibit Two (the video from the drug transaction). He argues that he
raised this claim in his state habeas application when he alleged that “Exhibit 2 was admitted
without objection.” Id. But Petitioner did not frame this allegation in the context of ineffective
assistance of counsel; therefore, Petitioner did not apprise the state court of the legal theory upon

1

Case 4:22-cv-00004-ALM-AGD

Document 68
1742

Filed 03/10/25

Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

which Claim 2 was based. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that Claim 2 is
unexhausted and procedurally barred. Petitioner’s objection is without merit.
Finally, Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that he failed to satisfy the twoprong ineffective assistance of counsel test set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
(1984). (Dkt. #66, p. 1). Petitioner reurges the arguments raised in his § 2254 petition. The Court
has reviewed the arguments, and they generally add nothing new to Petitioner’s prior contentions
in this case. Despite his arguments, Petitioner fails to show that the Report is in error or that he is
entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration. Having
made a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner to the Report, the Court concludes
that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby
adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the
. Court.

It is accordingly ORDERED the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the
case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 10th day of March, 2025.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2