Vandenabeelen v. TDCJ-CID

- 1 -
No. 6:24-cv-00218
Anthony Vandenabeelen,
Petitioner,
v.
Director, TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.
O R D E R
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.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th
Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass
v. 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
Case 6:24-cv-00218-JCB-JDL Document 33 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
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.
J. CAM PB EL L BA RK ER
United States District Judge
Case 6:24-cv-00218-JCB-JDL Document 33 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>