Hopson v. Rivera

S.D. Texas

Hopson v. Rivera

DecidedOctober 7, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00164

StatusUnknown

This text of Hopson v. Rivera (Hopson v. Rivera) 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

Hopson v. Rivera, (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□□ □□ 2028 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CHARLES J. HOPSON, JR., § Petitioner, V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00164 OSCAR RIVERA, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDA TION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 19). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief. /d. at 4. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States vy. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell vy. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 19). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief. (D.E. 1). The Court will enter a final judgment separately. 1/2

DAVID“ MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas October yt > 2025

2/2

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 □□□ □□ 2028 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CHARLES J. HOPSON, JR., § Petitioner, V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00164 OSCAR RIVERA, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDA TION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 19). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief. /d. at 4. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States vy. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell vy. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 19). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief. (D.E. 1). The Court will enter a final judgment separately. 1/2

DAVID“ MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas October yt > 2025

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hopson v. Rivera, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopson-v-rivera-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack