Auzenne v. Davis

S.D. Texas

Auzenne v. Davis

DecidedApril 13, 2020

Docket7:19-cv-00144

StatusUnknown

This text of Auzenne v. Davis (Auzenne v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Auzenne v. Davis, (S.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 13, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION HAROLD VINCENT AUZENNE, § § VS. § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:19-CV-00144 LORIE DAVIS, Director § Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Petitioner Harold Vincent Auzenne’s petition for a 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 February 28, 2020, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED as moot, that the § 2254 petition be DENIED as moot, and that this civil action be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. It was further recommended that 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.’ Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot, the § 2254 petition is DENIED as moot, and this civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 13th day of April, 2020. Warnes 7 Micaela Alvarez United States District Judge

' 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 (Sth 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 P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b\(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n. 5 (5th Cir.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). 1/1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 13, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION HAROLD VINCENT AUZENNE, § § VS. § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:19-CV-00144 LORIE DAVIS, Director § Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Petitioner Harold Vincent Auzenne’s petition for a 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 February 28, 2020, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED as moot, that the § 2254 petition be DENIED as moot, and that this civil action be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. It was further recommended that 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.’ Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot, the § 2254 petition is DENIED as moot, and this civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 13th day of April, 2020. Warnes 7 Micaela Alvarez United States District Judge

' 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 (Sth 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). 1/1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Auzenne v. Davis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auzenne-v-davis-txsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack