Kevin James Manning v. Director, TDCJ-CID

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 6:25-cv-00317
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

KEVIN JAMES MANNING, #2820, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-317-JDK-JDL § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § § Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Kevin James Manning, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge a criminal conviction. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. On October 2, 2025, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 16. A copy of the Report was mailed to Petitioner the day after its entry, and he is presumed to have received it. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 and n.9 (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining that where a letter is properly placed in the United States mail, a presumption exists that the letter reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed). Petitioner did not file written objections. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of Judge Love de novo 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. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Petitioner did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews Judge Love’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his 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. 16) as the findings of this Court. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of November, 2025.

JHREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE