where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”
How later courts described this case
- where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ORLANDO ISIAH BROWN §
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-00094-RWS
v.
§
§
WARDEN S. SALMONSON
§
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
(Docket No. 12), which contains her findings, conclusions and recommendations f or the
disposition of this matter. Petitioner Orlando I. Brown, an inmate confined at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Texarkana, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned civil
action to petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket No. 1. The case
was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the
applicable orders of this Court. The Respondent Warden S. Salmonson thereafter filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Petition. Docket No. 11.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 11) and thereby
dismissing the petition (Docket No. 1). A copy of the Report and Recommendation was mailed
to the Petitioner with a corresponding acknowledgment card. The acknowledgment card was
returned to the Court on May 16, 2022, albeit neither signed nor dated. Docket No. 13. To date,
no objections to the Report have been filed.
Petitioner is, therefore, barred from de novo review by the District Court of the Magistrate
Judge’s findings, conclusions and recommendations; and, except upon grounds of plain error,
Petitioner is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858
F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause of action and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court concludes that the Report of the Magistrate Judge
is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (where no objections
to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of
discretion and contrary to law”), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Thus, finding no grounds of
plain error or manifest injustice, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No.
12) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Docket No. 11) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is
DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the above-titled cause of action is DISMISSED. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions currently pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED-AS-MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of June, 2022.
fooher t+ LU Ctrrvecls. G2.
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2