Hawkins v. Lumpkin

District Court, S.D. Texas

Hawkins v. Lumpkin

Trial Court Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ene SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION JOHN F. HAWKINS, § Petitioner, : V. CIVIL ACTION NO, 2:22-CV-00210 BOBBY LUMPKIN, : Respondent. : ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 8). The M&R recommends that the Court construe Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion as a petition for habeas relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254

and dismiss it without prejudice to Petitioner obtaining authorization from the Fifth Circuit to file a petition in the district court. (D.E.1). The M&R additionally recommends the Court deny Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (D.E. 2). The M&R further recommends the Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. 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. Crv. 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 1s not clearly erroneous

1/2

or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 8). Accordingly, the Court construes Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion, (D.E. 1), as a petition for habeas relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254

, The Court DENIES Petitioner’s habeas petition without prejudice to Petitioner obtaining authorization form the Fifth Circuit to file a petition in the district court. (D.E. 1). The Court additionally DENUES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (D.E. 2). Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability.

SAND MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas May , 2023

2/2

Reference

Status
Unknown