Opinion
6:24-cv-88-JDK-JDL 6:24-cv-96-JCB-JDL
10-02-2024
RICHARD JAMES JOHNSON, #1005689, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF LARRY R. SMITH, Respondent. RICHARD JAMES JOHNSON, #1005689, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF LARRY R. SMITH, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JEREMY D. KERNODLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Richard James Johnson, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge, the Honorable John D. Love, for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. Shortly after filing his original petition, Petitioner filed a second habeas petition about the same matter, docketed as case number 6:24-cv-0096. Judge Love consolidated the second petition into this case as an amended petition and administratively closed the second case. Docket No. 4.
On August 26, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny the petition and dismiss this case without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order and failure to prosecute. Docket No. 18. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time period for filing objections has passed.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, Petitioner did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 18) as the findings of this Court. This petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and both actions are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2024.