Checksfield v. Director, TDCJ-CID
MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 13 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the application for the writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice. Ordered that the Petitioner James Checksfield 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 Judge Ron Clark on 1/25/2017. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JAMES MICHAEL CHECKSFIELD
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv712
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Petitioner James Checksfield, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 complaining of the legality of 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.
Checksfield was convicted of the disciplinary offenses of possession of a weapon and
threatening to inflict harm on an offender, receiving punishments of 45 days of commissary
restriction, 30 days of cell restriction, reduction in classification status, and the loss of 30 days of
good time credits. After exhausting his state remedies, he sought federal habeas corpus relief. The
Respondent filed an answer, to which Checksfield filed a response.
After review of the pleadings and the state records, including an audio recording of the
disciplinary hearing, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the petition for habeas
corpus relief be dismissed. No objections were filed to the report; consequently, the parties are
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. 13) 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 James Checksfield 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
Jan 25, 2017
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?