Kellum v. Director, TDCJ-CID
MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Ordered that the Plaintiff's 20 Motion for relief from judgment is denied.. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 1/10/2018. (bjc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv1294
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
The Petitioner Demetrius Kellum, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 complaining of the legality of his conviction. This Court
ordered that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of
Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
After review of the pleadings and records, including the answer from the Respondent, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice
for failure to exhaust state remedies. In response to the Report, Kellum filed a motion asking that
his petition be voluntarily dismissed. This motion was granted and the petition was dismissed on
Kellum’s motion on August 24, 2017.
On October 2, 2017, Kellum filed a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). This motion contended that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly set out the facts of the
underlying case and challenged various alleged findings of the Magistrate Judge with respect to the
merits of his case; however, the Report was not adopted as the opinion of the district court, but
rather the petition was dismissed on Kellum’s own motion, and Kellum showed no basis upon which
to set aside the dismissal which he had requested. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended
that Kellum’s motion for relief from judgment be denied.
Kellum received a copy of the Report recommending denial of his motion for relief from
judgment on November 8, 2017, but filed no objections thereto; accordingly, he is barred from de
novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except
upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile
Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243
(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 21) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (docket no. 20) is DENIED.
Because Kellum’s petition was dismissed without prejudice, the denial of his motion for relief from
judgment does not preclude him from re-filing his habeas corpus petition at such time as his state
remedies are exhausted.
So Ordered and Signed
Jan 10, 2018
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?