From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Apr 6, 2021
Case No. 6:21-cv-4-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 6:21-cv-4-JDK-KNM

04-06-2021

FELIX AARON MILLER, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Felix Aaron Miller, 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 K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.

On January 19, 2021, Petitioner filed a letter stating that a mistake had been made and he did not file a case against the Director of TDCJ. Docket No. 5. Judge Mitchell construed this as a motion for voluntary dismissal of the petition and issued a Report recommending that the motion be granted, and the petition dismissed without prejudice. Docket No. 6. A copy of this Report was mailed to Petitioner, but no objections have been received.

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 Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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. 6) as the findings of this Court. Petitioner's motion for voluntary dismissal (Docket No. 5) is GRANTED and this petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of April, 2021.

/s/_________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Miller v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Apr 6, 2021
Case No. 6:21-cv-4-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2021)
Case details for

Miller v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

Case Details

Full title:FELIX AARON MILLER, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Date published: Apr 6, 2021

Citations

Case No. 6:21-cv-4-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2021)