□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 05, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ELMO D’SHON STARLING, § § Petitioner, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-27 § COX, § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 16). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See

(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015). . Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its. entirety. (D.E. 16). Accordingly, the Court construes Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as a Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS that motion (D.E. 15). 1/2

Petitioner’s habeas petition (D.E. 1) is DISMISSED. A final judgment will be entered separately. SO ORDERED. DA . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas October ¥ £2021

2/2