Rivera-Zuniga v. USA

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 12 Report and Recommendations. IT IS ORDERED that Movant's section 2255 motion is DENIED and the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Further, it isORDERED that Movant is DENIED a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 03/31/2021. (efarris, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
SURI SURAI RIVERA-ZUNIGA, #28111-078 §
VS.

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:19cv611
CRIM NO. 6:18cr63

§

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Movant Suri Surai Rivera-Zuniga, a federal prisoner confined at the Federal Medical
Center in Fort Worth, Texas, brings this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her federal sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge, John
D. Love, for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition of the
case.
On February 26, 2021, Judge Love issued a Report (Docket No. 12) recommending that
Movant’s section 2255 motion be denied, the case be dismissed with prejudice, and that Movant
be denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte. A copy of this Report was sent to Movant at
her address. However, to date, no objections have been filed.
The Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a
party objects within fourteen days 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1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the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 days to fourteen days).
Here, Movant has not filed objections. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate
Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his legal conclusions to
determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
1
(5th Cir. 1989),

cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (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 the record in this case, the Court finds
no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court
hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket
No. 12) as the findings of this Court. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Movant’s section 2255 motion is DENIED and the above-styled civil
action is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Further, it is
ORDERED that Movant is DENIED a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Finally, it
is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 31st day of March, 2021.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2