Balderas v. Gonzales

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 19, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JUAN JOSE BALDERAS, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00118 § DAVID GONZALES, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

On August 13, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 12), construing Balderas’s complaint as an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and recommending that it be dismissed. Balderas was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 12), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Balderas’s § 2241 petition (D.E. 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to the screening provisions in Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which also apply to this § 2241 petition. ORDERED on September 19, 2024. eke GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2