Garza v. Davis, 7:18-CV-309. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20190125f48
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RANDY CRANE , District Judge . Before the Court is Petitioner Jesse Garza, Jr.'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 December 14, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner's 2254 petition be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust and a Certificate of Appealability be DEN
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RANDY CRANE , District Judge . Before the Court is Petitioner Jesse Garza, Jr.'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 December 14, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner's 2254 petition be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust and a Certificate of Appealability be DENI..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RANDY CRANE, District Judge.
Before the Court is Petitioner Jesse Garza, Jr.'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 December 14, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner's § 2254 petition be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust and a Certificate of Appealability be DENIED. 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 § 2254 petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
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 States Service Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 145, 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. April 2, 2012).
Source: Leagle
