United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10503
Summary Calendar
EDWARD MORRIS HARRIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
K.J. WENDT, Warden, Seagoville
Federal Detention Center,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CV-582-R
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-10503
-2-
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., No. 02-11397 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 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 (1994). The judgment of the district court denying
the habeas petition is AFFIRMED.
Harris’ motion for an expedited appeal is DENIED as moot.