Walker v. Edge

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 8 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 10/27/2017. (slo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JASON WALKER

§

VS.

§

WARDEN, FCI TEXARKANA

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16CV-191

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, Jason Walker, a federal prisoner confined at FCI Texarkana, proceeding pro se,
filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docket No. 1
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Caroline Craven, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Texarkana, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be denied. Docket No. 8.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. This requires a
de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b).
After careful consideration, the Court finds the objections lacking in merit. As outlined by
the Magistrate Judge, petitioner does not meet the requirements set forth in Reyes-Requena. ReyesRequena v. United States, 243, F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001). Mathis did not announce a new substantive
rule or apply retroactively on collateral review. United States v. Mathis, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016); see
also In re Lott, 838 F.3d 522, 523 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding that a petitioner had not made a prima
facie showing that Mathis set forth a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on
collateral review). Furthermore, Hinkle and Tanksley are not retroactively applicable Supreme Court
decisions but rather Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinions that were decided on direct review.

.

United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347 (5th
Cir. 2017).
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
recommendations.
SIGNED this 27th day of October, 2017.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE