Soliz v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

Full title: RAMOND SOLIZ, #2179672, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

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

Date published: May 18, 2021

Case No. 6:21-cv-016-JDK-JDL (E.D. Tex. May. 18, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 6:21-cv-016-JDK-JDL

05-18-2021

RAMOND SOLIZ, #2179672, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

JEREMY D. KERNODLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Raymond Soliz, 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.

Before the Court is Petitioner's motion for default judgment. Docket No. 13. On April 10, 2021, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court deny Petitioner' s motion. Docket No. 14. A copy of this Report was mailed to Petitioner. To date, 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 Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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. 14) as the findings of this Court and DENIES Petitioner's motion for default judgment (Docket No. 13).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of May, 2021.

/s/_________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE