Opinion
Civil Action 4:23-CV-00106
05-04-2023
TERRY EUGENE DURST, Plaintiff, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the March 14, 2023, Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 6). Magistrate Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 6).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes to be an objection. (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiff's filing does not address Judge Bray's findings, conclusions, or recommendation that the case be dismissed. (Id.).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Magistrate Judge Bray's M&R, (Dkt. No. 6), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It is SO ORDERED.