IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION IVORY L. CONROD, § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00092-RWS-CMC Petitioner, § § v. § § WARDEN, FCI TEXARKANA, § § Respondent. § ORDER Petitioner Ivory L. Conrad, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with

. After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge recommended denying the petition in a Report and Recommendation. Docket No. 14. A copy of this Report was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, return receipt requested, and an acknowledgment of receipt was filed on the docket, but no objections have been filed. Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report have been filed, Petitioner is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc.,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and the Magistrate Judge’s report and agrees with the report. See United States v. Raddatz,

(1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants.’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 275 (1976)). It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 14) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of February, 2022.

Joohar f LU? febrry ectee Geo | ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2