Daffern v. Davis, M-18-1389. (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20200317680
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2020
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MICAELA ALVAREZ , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Petitioner Douglas Wayne Daffern's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, which had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On January 20, 2020, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner's 2254 habeas petition be dismissed for failure to prosecute and that Petitioner be denied a certi
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MICAELA ALVAREZ , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Petitioner Douglas Wayne Daffern's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, which had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On January 20, 2020, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner's 2254 habeas petition be dismissed for failure to prosecute and that Petitioner be denied a certif..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICAELA ALVAREZ, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Douglas Wayne Daffern's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On January 20, 2020, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner's § 2254 habeas petition be dismissed for failure to prosecute and that Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability. The time for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error.1 Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to § 2254 is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE.
FootNotes
1. As noted by the Fifth Circuit, "[t]he advisory committee's note to Rule 72(b) states that, `[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Douglas v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n.5 (5th Cir. Apr. 2, 2012).
Source: Leagle
