Emerson v. Parker

E.D. Texas

Emerson v. Parker

DecidedMay 7, 2024

Docket6:23-cv-00453

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Emerson v. Parker, (E.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00453 Philip James Emerson, Jr., Petitioner, V. Jerry Parker et al., Respondents.

ORDER Petitioner Philip James Emerson, Jr., filed this action as a peti- tion for a writ of habeas corpus. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. On January 29, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report rec- ommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for fail- ure to comply with an order of the court and for lack of subject mat- ter jurisdiction. Doc. 17. Petitioner filed written objections that did not comply with the page limits set forth in Local Rule CV-72(c). Doc. 18. The magistrate judge struck the objections for noncompli- ance and gave petitioner five days to refile the objections within the applicable page limit. Doc. 19. Petitioner filed an objection to the order striking his written ob- jections. Doc. 21. A party objecting to an order must show that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see A.M. Castle & Co. ». Byrne, 123 F. Supp. 3d 895, 898 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (noting that a magistrate judge “is permit- ted broad discretion in resolving nondispositive pretrial motions”). Petitioner asserts that it was error to strike his objections. Local Rule CV-72(c) provides an eight-page limit for objections to reports and recommendations. Petitioner did not seek leave of court to exceed the page limit. The court overrules the objection because petitioner has not shown that the magistrate judge’s order was clearly errone- ous or contrary to law.

The court provided petitioner an opportunity to correct his fil- ing, but petitioner did not file written objections to the report. When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satis- fied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Any motion not ruled on is denied as moot. So ordered by the court on May 7, 2024. flacbod BARKER United States District Judge

_2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00453 Philip James Emerson, Jr., Petitioner, V. Jerry Parker et al., Respondents.

ORDER Petitioner Philip James Emerson, Jr., filed this action as a peti- tion for a writ of habeas corpus. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. On January 29, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report rec- ommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for fail- ure to comply with an order of the court and for lack of subject mat- ter jurisdiction. Doc. 17. Petitioner filed written objections that did not comply with the page limits set forth in Local Rule CV-72(c). Doc. 18. The magistrate judge struck the objections for noncompli- ance and gave petitioner five days to refile the objections within the applicable page limit. Doc. 19. Petitioner filed an objection to the order striking his written ob- jections. Doc. 21. A party objecting to an order must show that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see A.M. Castle & Co. ». Byrne, 123 F. Supp. 3d 895, 898 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (noting that a magistrate judge “is permit- ted broad discretion in resolving nondispositive pretrial motions”). Petitioner asserts that it was error to strike his objections. Local Rule CV-72(c) provides an eight-page limit for objections to reports and recommendations. Petitioner did not seek leave of court to exceed the page limit. The court overrules the objection because petitioner has not shown that the magistrate judge’s order was clearly errone- ous or contrary to law.

The court provided petitioner an opportunity to correct his fil- ing, but petitioner did not file written objections to the report. When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satis- fied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Any motion not ruled on is denied as moot. So ordered by the court on May 7, 2024. flacbod BARKER United States District Judge

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Emerson v. Parker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emerson-v-parker-txed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack