Martinez-Tijerina v. United States of America

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 9 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) - McALLEN , Case terminated on 07/12/18. A certificate of appealability should be DENIED. (Signed by Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(klopez, 7)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
MARIA MAGDALENA MARTINEZTIJERINA
VS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ENTERED
July 12, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. M-16-483
§
§ CRIMINAL ACTION NO. M-12-273-1
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Movant’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 May 26, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and
Recommendation, recommending that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED,
Movant’s § 2255 Motion be DENIED, and claims DISMISSED with prejudice, and that a
Certificate of Appealability be denied upon the issuance of this Court’s final order.
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, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED,
Movant’s § 2255 Motion is DENIED, and claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

A

Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2018, at McAllen, Texas.
___________________________________
Randy Crane
United States District Judge
1

“The 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 States Service Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
advisory committee’s note (1983)) superseded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as stated in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