Cartwright v. Director TDCJ

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Case terminated on 09/27/2018 (Signed by Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified.(SandraSilva, 7)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
MARCUS BRANDON CARTWRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
VS.
LORIE DAVIS,
Defendant.

September 27, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:17-CV-191
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Marcus Brandon Cartwright’s § 2254 pro se
petition, which had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On
September 7, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending
that Petitioner’s § 2254 motion 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 Petitioner’s § 2254
motion be DISMISSED without prejudice and the case be closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 27th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________
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 P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983)) superseded by statute on other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