□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 02, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION JERRICK MYCHAEL LUSK § § VS. § § CIVIL ACTION NO. M-18-297 LORIE DAVIS §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is Petitioner Jerrick Mychael Lusk’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to

, which had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On November 18, 2019, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be granted, that Petitioner’s § 2254 habeas petition be denied, that Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability, and that this action be dismissed. The time for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error.’ Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to § 2254 is DENIED, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, and this action is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 2nd day of January, 2020. Way, Micaela Alvarez United States District Judge ' As noted by the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he advisory committee’s note to Rule 72(b) states that, ‘[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Douglas v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996) (quoting FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds by 28 § 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446,

, at *7 n.5 (5th Cir. Apr. 2, 2012).

1/1