UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT June 21, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JOSE LUIS ACUNA-GARZA, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00284 § WARDEN COX ET AL, § § Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

On May 10, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (M&R, D.E. 15). The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R.1 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 M&R 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 M&R. 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 M&R (D.E. 15), and all other relevant documents in the record, and

1 Notice to Petitioner was returned to the Court because the last address he provided to the Court was his place of incarceration. As noted in the M&R, he has been released from incarceration. He did not provide the Court with a change of address. finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 14) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED as moot. ORDERED on June 21, 2022.

N be GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2