IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION STANLEY R. TILLEY, SR., #01629351 § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18cv163

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § ORDER OF DISMISSAL Petitioner Stanley Renard Tilley, Sr., a state prisoner confined at the Eastham Unit within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

challenging his judgment and sentence from Cherokee County, Texas. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge, the Honorable K. Nicole Mitchell, for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the petition. On August 20, 2020, Judge Mitchell issued a Report, (Dkt. #20), recommending that Petitioner’s habeas petition be dismissed, with prejudice, and that Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte. A copy of this Report was sent to Petitioner at his address, with an

acknowledgment card. Petitioner has filed timely objections, (Dkt. #22). Objections that simply rehash or mirror the underlying claims addressed in the Report are not sufficient to entitle the party to de novo review. See U.S. v. Morales,

(D.P.R. 2013) (“Even though timely objections to a report and recommendation entitle the objecting party to de novo review of the findings, ‘the district court should be spared the chore of traversing ground already plowed by the Magistrate.’”) (internal citations omitted); see also Vega v. Artuz,

*1 (S.D. NY Sep. 2002) (unpublished) (“However, objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review of the magistrate judge’s recommendations.”). Here, Petitioner’s objections to Judge Mitchell’s Report and Recommendation are an attempt to rehash his habeas claims. Nevertheless, the court has conducted a careful de novo review of the record and the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. See

(b)(1)

(District Judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Upon such de novo review, the court has determined that the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge is correct and Petitioner’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections, (Dkt. #22), are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #20), is ADOPTED as the opinion of the court. It is also ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Moreover, it is ORDERED that Petitioner Tilley is DENIED a certificate of appealability sua sponte.

Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED.