Gee v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
12
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER HABEAS PETITION re: 9 Memorandum and Recommendations (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(amireles, ) [Transferred from Texas Southern on 5/8/2013.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
CHRIS KEVIN GEE,
Petitioner,
VS.
RICK THALER,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-00409
§
§
§
§
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO TRANSFER HABEAS PETITION
On April 17, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Brian L. Owsley issued his
“Memorandum and Recommendation to Transfer Habeas Petition” (D.E. 9). The parties
were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been filed.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 9), and all other relevant
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this petition for writ of
1/2
habeas corpus is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Dallas
Division of the Northern District of Texas.
ORDERED this 7th day of May, 2013.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2/2
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?