Mendez v. United States of America

Filing 4

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 3 Report and Recommendations. Petitioner's 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is transferred to the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas. (Signed by Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified.(BelindaSaenz, 7) [Transferred from Texas Southern on 9/21/2017.]

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
September 21, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
JUAN CARLOS MENDEZ
VS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO.

David J. Bradley, Clerk

M-16-640

CRIM. ACTION NO. M-15-1367-1

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Juan Carlos Mendez‟s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a
report and recommendation. On August 23, 2017, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and
Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner‟s § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus be
transferred to the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas. The time for filing
objections has passed and no objections have been filed.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the Report and
Recommendation for clear error.1 Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner‟s § 2241
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is transferred to the Beaumont Division of the Eastern
District of Texas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 21st day of September, 2017.
___________________________________
Micaela Alvarez
United States District Judge

1

As noted by the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he advisory committee‟s note to Rule 72(b) states that, „[w]hen no timely objection is filed,
the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.‟” Douglas v. United Servs. Auto. Ass‟n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)
advisory committee‟s note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery
Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n.5 (5th Cir. Apr. 2, 2012).

1/1