Jimenez v. Davis, M-18-827. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20181113g97
Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RANDY CRANE , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Alberto Garcia Jimenez's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On September 21, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner's 2254 Petition be DISMISSED without prejudice and that a Certificate of Appealability be DENIED upon the issuance of this Court's final order. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedur
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RANDY CRANE , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Alberto Garcia Jimenez's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On September 21, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner's 2254 Petition be DISMISSED without prejudice and that a Certificate of Appealability be DENIED upon the issuance of this Court's final order. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RANDY CRANE, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Alberto Garcia Jimenez's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 21, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner's § 2254 Petition be DISMISSED without prejudice and that a Certificate of Appealability be DENIED upon the issuance of this Court's final order.
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, Petitioner's § 2254 Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. "The 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 States Service Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note (1983)) superseded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n.5 (5th Cir.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
