Kinsey v. Lumpkin
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING 18 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. This petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 6/3/2024. (wea).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ROBERT FRANK KINSEY,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:22-cv-465-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Robert Kinsey, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate
proceeding pro se, filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K.
Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for
disposition.
On April 19, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Court deny the petition and dismiss this case with prejudice.
Judge Mitchell also recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied.
Docket No. 18. A copy of this Report was mailed to Petitioner at his last-known
address. To date, Petitioner has not objected to the Report.
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
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 object 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), 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. 18) as the findings of this Court. This
petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with
prejudice. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
So ordered and signed on this
Jun 3, 2024
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?