Gonzalez v. Texas, The State of

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 20 Report and Recommendation and transfers this action to the Western District of Texas, Pecos Division, for disposition. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/2/2016. (gpre, ) [Transferred from South Carolina on 12/2/2016.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Patricio Gonzalez, #07198-030,

) Civil Action No. 8:16-3124-BHH
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
The State of Texas,
)
)
Respondent. )
________________________________ )
Petitioner Patricio Gonzalez (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pretrial handling. The matter is now
before this Court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), which was issued on November 15, 2015. (ECF No. 201.) In her Report, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be transferred to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Pecos Division. Id. at 6. On November 28, 2016,
Petitioner filed a Response concurring with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to
transfer this case to the Western District of Texas, Pecos Division. (ECF No. 22).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit

the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the
absence of timely filed objections, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but
instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order
to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court
need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a careful review of the record and the applicable law, the Court finds no clear
error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF
No. 20) and transfers this action to the Western District of Texas, Pecos Division, for
disposition.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
December 2, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2