IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

§ ANTONIO ANDRES GARCIA, § § Petitioner, § § Case No. 6:24-cv-111-JDK-KNM v. § § DISCIPLINARY DEPARTMENT, § § Respondent. § §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Antonio Andres Garcia, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this habeas action challenging a disciplinary proceeding. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. On June 17, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that Petitioner’s habeas petition be denied and that the Court deny him a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Docket No. 15. She further recommended that Petitioner’s claims sounding in civil rights should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff with an acknowledgment card, which petitioner received on June 25, 2025. Docket No. 16. However, no objections have been received. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation.

(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15) as the findings of this Court. The Court ORDERS that Petitioner’s civil-rights claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Any and all pending motions are hereby DENIED. So ordered and signed on this ) Aug 4, 2025 ; wl en 2 Nel UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE