Freeman v. Director TDCJ

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 8 Report and Recommendations. The above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. A certificate of appealability is DENIED sua sponte. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 1/7/2021. (efarris, )

Case 6:19-cv-00495-JDK-KNM Document 9 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 24
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ANTONIO FREEMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:19-cv-495-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Antonio Freeman, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and
numbered application for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
challenging the legality of his conviction. The case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. After ordering
Petitioner to pay the filing fee or to seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and to
file an amended petition in accordance with Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Proceedings in the United States District Courts, 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 this Report was sent to

Petitioner at his last known address, return receipt requested, but no objections
have been filed.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

In conducting a de novo review, the

Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under
the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996)
(en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending
the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Petitioner did not file
1

Case 6:19-cv-00495-JDK-KNM Document 9 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 25
objections in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate
Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal
conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous,
abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law.
The Court therefore adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge as the findings of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
(Docket No. 8) be ADOPTED.

The above-styled application for the writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute
or to obey an order of the Court. A certificate of appealability is DENIED sua
sponte. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.

So ordered and signed on this
Jan 7, 2021

2