Wood v. Davis

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 5 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support, 8 Report and Recommendations. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.(Signed by Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified.(BelindaSaenz, 7)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
WALTER L. WOOD,
VS.
LORIE DAVIS,

§
§
§
§
§
§

September 21, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. M-16-470

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Walter L. Wood‟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 25, 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 without prejudice. 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 without prejudice.
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advisory committee‟s note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery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