UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:22-cv-00366 Marcus Haynes, Petitioner, V. Director, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

ORDER This habeas corpus action was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to

(b). Doc. 2. On September 3, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the court deny relief, dismiss the petition with prejudice, and deny a certif- icate of appealability sua sponte. Doc. 27. Petitioner filed a “re- sponse,” which the court construes to be written objections. Doc. 29. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);

(b)(1). The basis for the recommended dismissal of this action is that petitioner’s allegedly wrongful prison disciplinary conviction does not demonstrate the depriva- tion of any constitutionally protected right because he is ineligible for release on mandatory supervision. Doc. 27 at 2-5. The magis- trate judge also recommended that the court caution petitioner that any further false statements to the court, such as his false as- sertion in this case that he is eligible for release on mandatory su- pervision, could subject him to sanctions. Jd. at 6-7. Petitioner’s objection reiterates his claim that he is innocent of the offense for which he was disciplined and argues that the “genuine issue of this case” is his innocence rather than the se- verity of his punishment. Doc. 29 at 1. He asserts that “[t]he ‘mandatory supervision’ misunderstanding was so minute, it was deemed not worthy of mentioning.” Jd. But for the reasons

-l-

explained by the magistrate judge, that issue is dispositive of this case, regardless of petitioner’s guilt or innocence of the discipli- nary infraction. See Doc. 27 at 4-5. Additionally, petitioner’s gen- eralized fear of harm for “steal[ing] a cell phone” is not sufficient to show a constitutional violation. Doc. 29 at 2; see Whitaker ». Kempt, No. 6:19-cv-00349,

, at *12 (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2021), report and recommendation adopted,

(E.D. Tex. June 10, 2021). Petitioner’s objections do lit- tle to challenge the magistrate judge’s conclusion that he did not identify “a constitutional or other federal violation” that would make him eligible for habeas relief. Doc. 27 at 5. Having reviewed the objected-to portions of the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and being satisfied that it contains no er- ror, the court overrules petitioner’s objections and accepts the re- port’s findings and recommendation. Petitioner’s case is dis- missed with prejudice. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appeal- ability sua sponte. Any pending motions are denied as moot. Further, petitioner is cautioned that any false statements in his submissions to the court in this or any future lawsuits may result in the imposition of sanctions sufficient to deter such conduct. So ordered by the court on April 24, 2025. Conbake, —_faebok BARKER United States District Judge

-2-