Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 03, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION LARRY JOHN ROBERTS, § § Petitioner, § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00074 § WARDEN MARIO CORDOVA, § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 25). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss (D.E. 21) and dismiss Petitioner’s

habeas petition without prejudice. (D.E. 1); (D.E. 25, p. 1, 7). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 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,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). 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 is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 25). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. 21), and DISMISSES without prejudice

Petitioner’s

habeas petition. (D-E. 1). The Court will enter a final judgment separately. SO ORDERED.

DAVID SPMORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas October ge 2025