. Southern District of Texas ENTERED November 07, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION PEDRO SANTOS OLIVAREZ, JR., - § Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00167 SHERIFF OSCAR RIVERA, ef al., Defendants. : 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: e Construe Plaintiff's claim as a request for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.§ 2241; e Dismiss Plaintiffs claim without prejudice pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine; e Vacate Judge Neurock’s order for collection of initial partial filing fee to proceed in forma pauperis for an action under

; e Grant Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis in a habeas action under

; and e Decline to impose a strike under

(g). Jd. at 5. 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

' Although Plaintiff has filed several documents since the M&R’s entry, these documents further explain Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations and ongoing state criminal proceedings, and do not contain . objections to the M&R. See (D.E. 11; D.E. 13; D.E. 14). : 1/2

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. 8). Accordingly, the Court: e CONSTRUES Plaintiffs claim as a request for habeas relief under

; e DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's claim pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine ; e VACATES “Judge Neurock’s order for collection of initial partial filing fee to proceed in forma pauperis for an action under

; and GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis to proceed in a habeas

. action under

; and e DECLINES to impose a strike under

(g).

. The Court will enter a final judgment separately.

DAY MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas November-442025

2/2