Santana v. Cox

Opinion

~ Souther District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 05, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ~ JOSE MAURICIO SANTANA, § Petitioner, : VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-298 WARDEN COX, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and □ Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 23). The M&R recommends that the Court construes Respondent’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and grants Respondent’s motion. (D.E. 18). Further, the M&R recommends that the Court deny Santana’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. (D.E. 1). 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. Clv. 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 v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015). Having carefully 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

1/2

M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 23). Accordingly: (1) The Court construes Respondent’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and GRANTS Respondent’s motion. (D.E. 18). (2) The Court DENIES Santana’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. (D.E. 1). A final judgment will be entered separately. SO ORDERED. G S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas November fA , 2021

2/2