Chavis v. Director
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice. Ordered that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby denied. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 6/4/2018. (bjc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JOSEPH M. CHAVIS, #122330
§
VS.
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17cv090
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
Petitioner Joseph M. Chavis, an inmate confined at the Coffield Unit of the Texas prison
system (TDJC), proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 complaining of the legality of prison disciplinary measures taken against him. The
petition was referred for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the
disposition of the case.
After reviewing the pleadings in this case, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report, (Dkt. #21),
recommending that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice
and that a certificate of appealability be denied. A copy of this Report was sent to Petitioner at his
address; return receipt requested. The docket shows that Petitioner received a copy of the Report
on July 31, 2017, (Dkt. #22). However, to date, no objections to the Report have been filed.
Accordingly, Petitioner 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).
1
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.”). Accordingly it is
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #21), is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the Court. Further, it is
ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with
prejudice. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.
So Ordered and Signed
Jun 4, 2018
2
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?