Blanton v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 44

ORDER ACCEPTING 33 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 29 Motion for Leave to File A Motion to Recall Transferred 2254 Motion. The petitioner's motion is construed as arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and is hereby DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 8/9/2017) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DONALD GENE BLANTON,
ID # 1307891,
Petitioner,
vs.
LORIE DAVIS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:17-CV-383-B

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas case, Donald Gene Blanton (Petitioner) objects to the
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation (FCR) entered by the United States Magistrate Judge on
July 5, 2017, regarding his motion filed on June 23, 2017. (Docs. 29, 33, 40.)
Among other things, Petitioner contends that there was no order referring the matter to the
Magistrate Judge and he did not consent to having the Magistrate Judge rule on the motion. A
district judge is statutorily authorized to designate a magistrate judge to determine pretrial matters
and to conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and recommendation on dispositive matters by
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(a). This case was automatically referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to
Special Order 3-251, and the Magistrate Judge was authorized to enter a recommendation without
Petitioner’s consent. See Valenzuela v. Director, No. 6:13cv553, 2013 WL 4418535 at *1 (E.D. Tex.
Aug. 13, 2013) (citing Lineberry v. United States, 436 F. App’x 293, 295 (5th Cir. 2010).
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the objections thereto, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclu-

sions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of
the Court. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, the petitioner’s motion is construed as arising under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 9th day of August, 2017.

_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2