Anthony Vandenabeelen v. Director, TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00218 Anthony Vandenabeelen, Petitioner, V. Director, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

ORDER Petitioner filed this habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge (Doc. 4), who recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice for petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims in state court. Doc. 30 at 10. Petitioner filed written objections. Doc. 32.

The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, the “objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Vettles ». Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass vy. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en- title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis- trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). When there have been no timely objections to a report, or the objections are improper, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment.

Petitioner argues that the state court (or this court) should have found his state habeas application to be properly filed for var- ious reasons. But for the same reasons explained by the magistrate -l- judge, the state court’s proper enforcement of its own procedural rules precludes federal habeas relief. Doc. 30 at 5-6. Petitioner’s remaining arguments concern his substantive claims. However, as explained by the magistrate judge, the court cannot grant an ap- plication for habeas relief if petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies. Doc. 30 at 3. Petitioner’s underlying claims are not material to the dispositive issue of exhaustion and petitioner has not shown that any exception to the exhaustion rule applies.

Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are overruled.

Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo and be- ing satisfied that there is no error, the court accepts the report’s findings and recommendations. Petitioner’s case is dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted. The court sua sponte denies a certificate of appealability of this order and judgment. Any pend- ing motions are denied as moot.

So ordered by the court on February 25, 2026.

Mabok J: ‘CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge -2-