Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-00126
02-07-2023
ANDREW CHARLES JACKSON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN COX, Respondent,
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID S. MORALES, DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 15). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 14), and dismiss Petitioner's claim for habeas corpus relief, (D.E. 1). (D.E. 15, p. 1,4).
The parties were provided proper 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. No objection has been filed. 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.).
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. 15). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion for summary judgment. (D.E. 14). Petitioner's claim for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED. (D.E. 1). A final judgment will be entered separately.
SO ORDERED.