Freeman v. Director, TDCJ-CID

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: February 27, 2023
• Docket: 6:19-cv-00601
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ROBERT MICHAEL FREEMAN § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:19cv601 DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner Robert Michael Freeman, a prisoner confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2254 challenging his Smith County, Texas, conviction. The petition was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. On January 26, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that Petitioner’s habeas petition be denied and that the case be dismissed

with prejudice. Docket No. 14. She further recommended that Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte. A copy of this Report was sent to Petitioner at his last-known address. However, Petitioner neither filed objections nor communicated with the Court. The Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten days to fourteen days). Here, Petitioner has not filed objections. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, (Docket No. 14), as the findings of this Court. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s habeas petition is DENIED, and the above-styled lawsuit is DISMISSED with prejudice. Petitioner is further DENIED a certificate of appealability sua sponte. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of February, 2023. Gey J Kerb JHREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE