Henry v. Barr ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DONOVAN HENRY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ) ) MARC J. MOORE, et al., ) ) Respondent. ) Civil Action No, 3:20-CV-1114-C-BT ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and motion for preliminary injunction should be denied.’ The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). After due consideration and having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that Petitioner’s objections should be OVERRULED. The Court has further conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ' Petitioner has filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and motion for preliminary injunction are hereby DENIED. dl SO ORDERED this A day of November, 2020. jp y Mm, Le POPITAEY SAMR EUMMINGS h | ~ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE /