Simon v. United States

District Court, S.D. Texas

Simon v. United States

Trial Court Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 17, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CORNELL SIMON, § Petitioner, ; v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00137 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

_ , ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 9). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner Cornell Simon's petition, (D.E. 1), because the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claim. □□□ 9, p. 5). The M&R also recommends “that Petitioner’s cause of action not be characterized as [a] motion to vacate or set aside his sentence brought pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255

because Petitioner has previously filed a § 2255 motion in the correct jurisdiction.” Jd. □

The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See

28 U.S.C. § 636

(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,

864 F.2d 1219, 1221

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp.,

512 F. Supp. 3d 741

, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). Having 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’s recommendation that Petitioner’s claim be

1/2

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (D.E. 9). The Court also ADOPTS the M&R’s recommendation that Petitioner’s cause of action not be characterized as a motion to vacate or set aside his sentence brought pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255

. Jd. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's petition be DISMISSED. (D.E. 1). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED. | : | DAVID S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas October/47% 2022

2/2

Reference

Status
Unknown