Harris v. Wendt

108 F. App'x 205

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 20, 2004
• Docket: 04-10503
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Edward Morris Harris, federal prisoner # 31832-086, appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition seeking his release from incarceration based on the district court’s finding that he acted in contempt of the district court’s order. Harris argues that the district court erred in failing to consider his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and in determining that it had jurisdiction to hold him in contempt of court.

Assuming that the district court did not review the objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the failure to do so was not reversible error because Harris is making legal arguments or arguments that were addressed in prior proceedings he filed challenging his incarceration for contempt. Thus, the district court’s independent and de novo review of the petition was not reversible error. See Smith v. Collins, 964 F.2d 483, 485 (5th Cir.1992).

Insofar as Harris argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order of contempt, this argument was rejected by this court in Harris’ prior habeas action challenging his incarceration for contempt. See SEC v. Resource Development. Int’l L.L.C., 86 Fed.Appx. 14 (5th Cir.2003). Harris has failed to show that he is unable to comply with the district court’s order to disclose the assets of Jade Asset Management to the receiver. He has simply refused to do so. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to release Harris from incarceration based on the contempt order. See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994). The judgment of the district court denying the habeas petition is AFFIRMED.

Harris’ motion for an expedited appeal is DENIED as moot.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.