Olamide Olatayo Bello v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION OLAMIDE OLATAYO BELLO, § #65100510 § § CIVIL NO. 4:25-CV-00531-ALM-BD VS. § § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bill Davis, who issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #9), concluding that the petition for a writ of mandamus should be denied. Petitioner filed a timely objection. (Dkt. #12).

The court reviews the objected-to portions of a report and recommendation de novo. 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. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429–30 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

The Court finds that Petitioner’s objections lack merit. As explained in the Report and Recommendation, a writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal and cannot be used to instruct a court on how to rule on any matter before it on the merits. (Dkt. #9). Nor can it be used to challenge the truthfulness of testimony. See id. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner had not met his burden to show entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief.

Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #9) is ACCEPTED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.