Atrach v. Young
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 6 Report and Recommendations (Signed by Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(cvillegas, 7)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WARDEN S. YOUNG
January 08, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:15-CV-525
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP) along with his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 (Dkt. Entry
Nos. 1-2). On November 21, 2017, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Petitioner’s IFP application and 2241 petition be dismissed without prejudice
for want of prosecution, and for failure to comply with the local rules. 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, Petitioner’s IFP application and 2241 petition
(Dkt. Entry Nos. 1-2) are DISMISSED without prejudice.
As noted by the Fifth Circuit, [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 P.72(b) advisory committee s note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds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 8th day of January, 2018, 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?