Weaver v. White

Filing 5

ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Motion(s) 4 terminated). Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 3/8/2025. (wea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DIANNE LEE WEAVER,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN WHITE,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:25-cv-36-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Dianne Lee Weaver, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of
habeas corpus and paid the filing fee.

The case was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On February 5, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Court dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Docket No. 4. A copy of this Report was mailed to Petitioner at the
address she provided on her petition, but she 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
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),

1

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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) (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. 4) as the findings of this Court. This
case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All
pending motions are DENIED as moot.

So ordered and signed on this
Mar 8, 2025

2