Aguilar-Morfin v. United States of America

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Case terminated on 5/15/2017. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.(Signed by Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(BelindaSaenz, 7)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
JOSE LUIS AGUILAR-MORFIN
Petitioner-Defendant
VS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent-Plaintiff

§
§
§
§
§
§

May 15, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. M-14-978
CRIMINAL NO. M-12-1317-1

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Petitioner-Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255, which motion had been referred to the Magistrate Court
for a report and recommendation. On March 24, 2017, the Magistrate Court issued the Report
and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner-Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for
Nonsuit be granted, and that Petitioner-Defendant’s section 2255 motion be dismissed without
prejudice, and that a Certificate of Appealability be denied upon the issuance of this Court=s final
order. 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 clearly erroneous error, the Court adopts the

Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Petitioner-Defendant’s Unopposed
Motion for Nonsuit (Dkt. Entry No. 17) is GRANTED and Petitioner-Defendant’s section 2255
claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
1

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 P.72(b) advisory committee=s note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds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 15th day of May, 2017, at McAllen, Texas.
___________________________________
Randy Crane
United States District Judge

2/2