DeLeon v. Davis

S.D. Texas

DeLeon v. Davis

DecidedJanuary 2, 2020

Docket7:18-cv-00331

StatusUnknown

This text of DeLeon v. Davis (DeLeon 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 02, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION ELIAS DELEON JR. § § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:18-CV-00331 § LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas § Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Petitioner Elias DeLeon, Jr.’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 October 9, 2019, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED, that the § 2254 petition be DENIED, and that this civil action be DISMISSED with prejudice. 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 to dismiss is GRANTED and the § 2254 petition is DENIED. Finally, this civil action is DISMISSED with prejudice and a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 2nd day of January, 2020. Wa, Micae varez 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 P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds by 28 USC.§ 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n. 5 (Sth Cir. April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 January 02, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION ELIAS DELEON JR. § § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:18-CV-00331 § LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas § Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Petitioner Elias DeLeon, Jr.’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 October 9, 2019, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED, that the § 2254 petition be DENIED, and that this civil action be DISMISSED with prejudice. 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 to dismiss is GRANTED and the § 2254 petition is DENIED. Finally, this civil action is DISMISSED with prejudice and a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 2nd day of January, 2020. Wa, Micae varez 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 USC.§ 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n. 5 (Sth Cir. April 2, 2012). 1/1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack