Roy Edward Smith v. Director, TDCJ-CID

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION § ROY EDWARD SMITH, #01873319, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Case No. 6:24-cv-432-JDK-KNM § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner Roy Edward Smith, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus. The action was transferred to this Court from the Western District of Texas. Docket No. 6. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.

On December 12, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Petitioner’s habeas proceeding should be dismissed, without prejudice, for his failure to comply with an order of the Court. Docket No. 11. Judge Mitchell also recommended that the Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability, which would refer to this cause number only. A copy of this Report was mailed to Petitioner at his last-known address. The docket reflects that Petitioner received a copy of the Report on January 6, 2026. Docket No. 12. To date, however, Petitioner has not objected to the Report or otherwise responded.

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (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. 11) as the findings of this Court. This petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability as to this cause number only.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of February, 2026.

G5, A Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE