McNeal v. Director, TDCJ-CID
MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the application for the writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice. Ordered that the Petitioner William McNeal is denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Ordered that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby denied. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 11/28/2017. (bjc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv150
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Petitioner William McNeal, 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 referred the matter 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.
McNeal complained of a disciplinary conviction for the offense of sexual misconduct, for
which he received punishments of 45 days of cell and commissary restrictions and a loss of 30 days
of good time credits. He acknowledged that he is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a report concluding that McNeal
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, 515 U.S. 472, 484,
115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 959 (5th Cir. 2000). The
Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that the petition be dismissed and that McNeal be denied
a certificate of appealability sua sponte.
McNeal received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report on October 23, 2017 but filed no
objections thereto; 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. 22) 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 DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED that the Petitioner William McNeal is DENIED a certificate of appealability
sua sponte. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28 day of November, 2017.
Ron Clark, 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?