Opinion
Civil Action 2:23-CV-00002
07-20-2023
CEDRIC GREEN, Petitioner, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID S. MORALES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R"). (D.E. 16). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Respondent's motions for summary judgment, (D.E. 14), and dismiss Petitioner's claim for habeas corpus relief, (D.E. 1).
The parties were providedproper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. Petitioner has not filed timely objections. See (D.E. 18). When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge's M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp., 512 F.Supp.3d 741, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.).
Petitioner was served with the M&R on May 5, 2023. See (D.E. 17). The M&R stipulated that any objections must be filed within 14 days of receipt of service, (D.E. 16, p. 22), imposing a deadline of May 19. Petitioner erroneously believed that his objections were due 20 days after receiving the M&R, (D.E. 18, p. 1), which would have imposed a deadline of May 25. Even accepting Petitioner's extended deadline, however, these objections are still not timely as they were not mailed until May 30. Id. at 7.
Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 16). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion for summary judgment. (D.E. 14). Petitioner's habeas corpus claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. (D.E. 1). A final judgment will be entered separately.
SO ORDERED.