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

CARLOS D. SCOTT, #24116, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Case No. 6:24-cv-291-JDK-KNM § ANDERSON CO. SHERIFF’S DEPT., § § Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner Carlos Scott, a pre-trial detainee at the Anderson County Jail proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus under

. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. On September 4, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Petitioner’s habeas petition be dismissed, without prejudice, for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his required state remedies before filing this federal petition. Docket No. 8. Judge Mitchell also recommended that the Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability sua sponte. A copy of this Report was mailed to Petitioner at his last-known address. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time period for filing objections has passed. 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(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,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, Petitioner 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, the pleadings in this cause, and the record, 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. 8) as the opinion of this Court. Petitioner’s habeas proceeding is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner is further DENIED a certificate of appealability sua sponte. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of December, 2025.

JHREMYJD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE