UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 03, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

MIGUEL ANGEL MENDOZA- § TARANGO, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00054 § WARDEN ROSALEZ, § § Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On March 3, 2025, United States Magistrate Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (D.E. 7), recommending that this Court deny Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. 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 memorandum and recommendation 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 memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 7), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court:

e FINDS that Petitioner can afford to pay the filing fee without undue financial hardship; e ORDERS Petitioner to pay the $5 filing fee within 21 days after this Order; and

e WARNS Petitioner that if he fails to pay the filing fee within the mandated time, his habeas action may be dismissed without prejudice without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Accordingly, Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. 4) is DENIED. ORDERED on April 3, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2