Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-00250
11-17-2023
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On October 10, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (D.E. 27). The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's memorandum and recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge's memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 27), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice: (1) Petitioner's claim that TDCJ officials failed to follow their own policy to obtain clearance from the mental health department prior to Petitioner's disciplinary hearing, and (2) Petitioner's challenge to the reduction in his time-earning classification and his loss of privileges. Those claims are not cognizable on federal habeas review. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice as unexhausted Petitioner's claims that he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses in his defense and that TDCJ officials violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. Finally, the Court DENIES Petitioner's claim that he was wrongly denied the opportunity to present documentary evidence at his hearing. The Court DISMISSES this action in its entirety. In the event that Petitioner requests a Certificate of Appealability, that request is DENIED.