Cromey v. Director , TDCJ-CID

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 17 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 2/22/2022. (wea, )

Case 6:21-cv-00132-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1118

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

MICHAEL GUISTO CROMEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR , TDCJ-CID,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
JDK

6:21-CV-00132-

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On December 21, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 17), recommending that the petition be
dismissed with prejudice. The Report further recommended that a certificate of
appealability be denied. Petitioner requested an extension to file objections (Docket
No. 18), which the court granted (Docket No. 19), providing Petitioner until February
11, 2022 to file his objections. Petitioner received the court’s order on February 8,
2022. (Docket No. 21.) To date, no objections have been filed and the time to do so has
passed. Petitioner has further not requested any additional extensions from the
Court.
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
1

Case 6:21-cv-00132-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1119

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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 objections in
the prescribed period. 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
(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 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 (Docket No. 17) as the findings of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
(Docket No. 17) is ADOPTED. It is further
ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions not previously
ruled on are DENIED AS MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of February, 2022.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2