Carter v. Director, TDCJ-CID
MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice. Ordered that the Petitioner James Carter 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 7/21/2017. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17cv106
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Petitioner James Carter, 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.
Carter complained of a disciplinary conviction for the offense of threatening to inflict harm
on an unknown person, for which he received punishments of 45 days of cell and commissary
restrictions and a reduction in classification status from State Approved Trusty IV to Line Class II.
He was also removed from a parole program. Carter did not lose any good time.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a report concluding that Carter
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 Carter be denied
a certificate of appealability sua sponte.
Carter received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report 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
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. 8) 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 Carter 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 21 day of July, 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?