Freeman v. Director, TDCJ-CID
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The report of the magistrate judge 9 is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. The above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 03/07/16. (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv278
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Petitioner Antonio Freeman, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 complaining of the legality of his burglary conviction. This
Court ordered that the case 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.
Freeman was ordered to file his petition on a standard §2254 petition form and to pay the
statutory filing fee of $5.00 or properly seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. When he did not
comply with either order, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the petition be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court.
A copy of the magistrate judge’s report was sent to Freeman at his last known address, return
receipt requested, but no objections have been received; instead, Freeman wrote a letter stating that
“the only way I’m going to respond back to anything you say, do, or want, is you tell me out of your
own mouth, I’m getting a new sentencing or trial.” Because Freeman filed no objections, 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 unobjectedto 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. 9) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
SIGNED this 7th day of March, 2016.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
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?