Leal Marin v. Stephens

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 13 Report and Recommendations, 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, and this action is DISMISSED.(Signed by Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified.(BelindaSaenz, 7)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION ABEL LEAL MARIN, VS. LORIE DAVIS § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. September 21, 2017 David J. Bradley, Clerk M-16-170 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is Petitioner Abel Leal Marin‟s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On August 22, 2017, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Respondent‟s motion for summary judgment be granted, that Petitioner‟s § 2254 habeas petition be denied, that Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability, and that this action be dismissed. 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, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent‟s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, that Petitioner‟s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to § 2254 is DENIED, that Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, and that this action is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 21st day of September, 2017. ___________________________________ Micaela Alvarez United States District Judge 1 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 Servs. 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 P. 72(b) advisory committee‟s note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n.5 (5th Cir. Apr. 2, 2012). 1/1

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?