Contreras v. Quarterman, No. 4:2007cv00750 - Document 16 (N.D. Tex. 2008)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS re 15 Findings and Recommendations, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Michael K Contreras: See order for specifics. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 10/17/2008) (krg)

Download PDF
Contreras v. Quarterman Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION MICHAEL K. CONTRERAS, Petitioner, VS. § § § § NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, § T.D.C.J., Correctional § Institutions Div., § Respondent. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:07-CV-750-Y ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 of petitioner Michael K. Contreras, along with the September 18, 2008, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge. The magistrate judge gave the parties until October 9, 2008, to file written objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation. As of the date of this order, no written objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this case and has reviewed for clear error the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on September 18, 2008. The Court concludes that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice, in part, and denied, in part, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions. Therefore the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED. All of petitioner Contreras’s grounds for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, except his ground challenging the state habeascorpus proceeding, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the challenge Dockets.Justia.com to the state habeas-corpus proceeding, is DENIED. SIGNED October 17, 2008. ____________________________ TERRY R. MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.