Pedro Santos Olivarez, Jr. v. Callie Adkins, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: November 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00161
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 24, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

PEDRO SANTOS OLIVAREZ, JR., § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00161 § CALLIE ADKINS, et al., § § Respondents. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION On August 22, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss 2241 Habeas Action” (D.E. 19). Petitioner Pedro Santos Olivarez, Jr. (“Petitioner”) was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. Objections must point out with sufficient particularity any alleged error in the magistrate judge’s analysis; otherwise, they do not constitute proper objections and will not be considered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (“[P]arties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to.”). Petitioner filed three documents with the Court after service of the M&R. See D.E. 23, 25, 26. None of these documents relate to or address the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss the action under the Younger abstention doctrine. See D.E. 19; Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). In fact, Petitioner acknowledged that dismissal was 1 / 2 appropriate in this case. See D.E. 26 (“I am aware that the Court cannot intervene on an ongoing case”’). When no timely and proper objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (Sth Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 19), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ORDERED on November 24, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2