Cedillos-Alvarenga v. United States District Court

Filing 4

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 2 Report and Recommendations. A Certificate of Appealability is Denied. Case terminated on 11/30/2018. (Signed by Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified. (NelidaLosoya, 7)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
MARIA FELIX CEDILLOSALVARENGA,
Petitioner,
VS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
Respondent.

November 30, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§
§ MISC, ACTION NO. 7:17-MC-01465
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Maria Felix Cedillos-Alvarenga’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which had been referred to the Magistrate Court
for a report and recommendation. On October 12, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued the Report
and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner’s § 2241 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 Petitioner’s Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to § 2241 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 30th day of November, 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 P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983)) superseded by statute on other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