UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 14, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

AMARIO LYNN MCPHERSON, § § Petitioner, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-292 § TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & § PAROLES, § § Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

On December 4, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 7), recommending that the habeas petition be dismissed pursuant to the screening provisions in Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases because it is clear that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Petitioner was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b);

(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 7), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus (D.E. 1) is DISMISSED. ORDERED this 13th day of April, 2021. Ih, GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2