Hawkins v. Lumpkin
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. § 2254and 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