IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

PETER JOHN ELLINGTON, #1819234 § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16cv666 CONSOLIDATED WITH DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16cv667 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Petitioner Peter John Ellington, a prisoner confined in the Texas prison system, filed the above-styled and numbered petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The petitions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak, who issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #42) concluding that the petitions should be denied. Ellington has filed objections (Dkt. #50). Ellington is in custody pursuant to Collin County convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child (Count I) and indecency with a child (Count II), in Case Number 416-82711-09. Pursuant to an open plea, Ellington pled guilty to both charges. On September 27, 2012, Ellington was sentenced to 54 years of imprisonment for aggravated sexual assault of a child and 20 years of imprisonment for indecency with a child, with the sentences running consecutively. The convictions

were affirmed as modified. Ellington v. State, No. 05-12-01625-CR,

(Tex. App. - Dallas Dec. 5, 2013, pet. ref’d). On July 27, 2016, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his state applications for a writ of habeas corpus without written order on the findings of the trial court without a hearing. The present petitions were filed on August 25, 2016. Ellington brings the following grounds for relief: 1. Actual innocence; 2. Involuntary plea;

3. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel; 4. Prosecutorial misconduct; 5. Multiple punishments for the same act/double jeopardy; 6. Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise a double jeopardy argument; and 7. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for forbidding him to inform the court he is a citizen of Canada. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly addressed each claim and found that they lack merit. In particular, Ellington failed to satisfy the requirements of

(d). Ellington’s objections are simply reassertions of the claims raised in his petitions. He has not shown that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions were erroneous in any respect. The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration, and having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Ellington to the Report, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and Ellington’s objections are without merit. 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 that the above-styled petitions for a writ of habeas corpus are DENIED and the cases are DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further 2 ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. It is finally ORDERED that all motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.

3