Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-00069
11-03-2022
AGUSTIN NUNEZ-REYNOSO, Petitioner, v. WARDEN COX, et al., Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
DAW S. MORALES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton's Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 16). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment, (D-E. 14), and deny Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (D.E. 1). (D.E. 16, p. 9).
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. 16). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (D.E. 14). As such, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs § 2241 petition. (D.E. 1). A final judgment will be entered separately.
SO ORDERED.