Frey v. Director, TDCJ-CID
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 6 Report and Recommendations. The application for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. Petitioner William Frey is hereby DENIED a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Any and all other motions which may be pending in this civil action are DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 09/17/12. cc:petr 9-18-12(mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WILLIAM WALLACE FREY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12cv492
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Petitioner William Frey, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 complaining of the legality of prison disciplinary action taken against
him during his confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. This Court ordered that the matter be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules
for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Frey complained of a disciplinary case in which he was convicted of threatening an officer,
and for which he received nine days in “lockup” and 20 days of recreation, cell, and commissary
restrictions. He did not lose any good time. After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending that the petition be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge determined that
Frey had failed to show that the punishments imposed upon him as a result of the disciplinary case
at issue implicated any constitutionally protected liberty interests. See Sandin v. Conner, 115 S.Ct.
2293, 2301 (1995); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 959 (5th Cir. 2000). The Magistrate Judge
therefore recommended that Frey’s petition be dismissed and that he be denied a certificate of
appealability sua sponte.
A copy of this Report was sent to Frey at his last known address, return receipt requested,
but no objections have been received; accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the district
judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error,
from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted
and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243
(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 6) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus is hereby
DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that the Petitioner William Frey is hereby DENIED a certificate of appealability
sua sponte. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all other motions which may be pending in this civil action are
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of September, 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?