The opinion
□ Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 18, 202C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT David J. Bradley, Clerk
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ROMERO BROWN, §
§
Petitioner, §
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-277
§
TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND §
PAROLES, §
§
Respondent. §
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 5). The M&R recommends that the Court construe
Petitioner Romero Brown’s (“Petitioner”) petition as one under 28 U.S.C.§ 2254 because
Petitioner is attacking the underlying Texas mandatory supervision and parole statutes
and how each applies to sentences. The M&R further recommends that the Court dismiss
the case prior to service pursuant to the screening provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases because, after review of the petition and attached exhibits,
Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Jd. at 1-2, n.1; Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 959 (5th
Cir. 2000).
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. Petitioner timely filed objections to the M&R. (D.E. 7). Having
carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the
applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which
1/2
Petitioner’s objections were directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court OVERRULES
Petitioner’s objections. (D.E. 7). Accordingly, the Court:
(1) ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 5).
(2) DISMISSES the case in its entirety.
SO ORDERED. |
DA S. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas
December 17, 2020
2/2