Martinez-Cardenas v. United States Of America
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 29 Report and Recommendations, 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) as to Criminal Case No. 1:12-CR-0855 (Defendant No. 01). The court adopts the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations and dismisses with prejudice the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court directs the clerk to close this case. (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(dnoriega, 1)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
December 21, 2016
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL NO. 1:14-CV-22
(CRIM NO. 1:12-cr-00855-1)
Petitioner Martin Martinez-Cardenas, a former Texas prisoner who has since
been released from Bureau of Prisons custody, filed a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on June 4, 2014. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 29.
The Court has before it Petitioner’s pro se motion, Dkt. No. 1, and the Report and
Recommendations of the magistrate judge to whom this case was referred pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Dkt. No. 29 (“R&R”).
The deadline to file objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations has passed, and the docket sheet shows that no objections have
been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (setting 14-day deadline to file objections); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (same); see also R&R at 5 (advising parties of 14-day deadline).
The docket also shows that Petitioner received a copy of the R&R as of November
17, 2016. After independently reviewing the record and considering the applicable
recommendations and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, Dkt. No. 1. The Court directs the Clerk to close this case.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 20th day of December, 2016.
Senior United States District Judge
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?