Espericueta v. United States of America
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 26 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, 39 Report and Recommendations (Signed by Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 7)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DEVADIP CARLOS ESPERICUETA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
October 20, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:13-CV-205
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Movant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP) on appeal from the Court’s dismissal of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (D.E. No.
26). On August 24, 2017, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Movant’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal be denied as moot
because Movant has already paid the entire appellate fee. The time for filing objections has
passed, and no objections have been filed.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the Report and
Recommendation for clear error.1
Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Movant’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on
appeal (D.E. No. 26) is DENIED as moot.
As noted by the Fifth Circuit, A[t]he advisory committee=s note to Rule 72(b) states that, >[w]hen
no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.=@ Douglas v. United Services Auto. Ass=n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th
Cir. 1996)(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.72(b) advisory committee=s note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds
by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7
n.5 (5th Cir. April 2, 2012).
SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2017, at McAllen, Texas.
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?