The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
HENRY BROWN, #747413, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § Case No. 6:21-cv-117-JDK-JDL
§
LAURA HANEY, et al., §
§
Respondents. §
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Henry Brown, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice prisoner proceeding pro
se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case was transferred to this Court for proper
venue and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge, John D. Love, for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. Docket Nos. 2, 4.
On March 24, 2021, Judge Love observed that Petitioner had improperly combined a
challenge to his conviction with civil rights claims and ordered Petitioner to file an
amended habeas petition and a civil rights complaint. Docket No. 5. Judge Love also ordered
Petitioner to either pay the fees for both sets of claims or submit applications to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP). Id. On April 7, 2021, Judge Love gave Petitioner an extension of time
until May 7, 2021, and May 21, 2021, to file his IFP applications and amended
pleadings, respectively. Docket No. 9. Petitioner took no further action to prosecute this case,
and on June 4, 2021, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the petition be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to comply and failure to prosecute. Docket No. 12. A copy of this
Report was sent to Petitioner and received by him on June 10, 2021. Docket No. 13.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a
party objects within fourteen days 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 (Sth 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1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the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 his legal conclusions
to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(Sth 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. 12) as the findings of this Court. Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court
DENIES a certificate of appealability. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of July, 2021.
qo D Kobe
JERGMY D, KERNODIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE