Cleary v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID et al, No. 3:2017cv00722 - Document 27 (N.D. Tex. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER accepting 26 Findings and Recommendations. The Court denies 25 Motion for Reconsideration. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/19/2018) (epm)

Download PDF
Cleary v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID et al Doc. 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MARVIN CLEARY, ID #1692182, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, TDCJ-CID, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-722-L ORDER Before the court is Petitioner’s Motion to Abate and Call for Reconsideration (Doc. 25), filed April 18, 2018. On April 20, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending that Petitioner’s motion be denied. No objections were filed to the Report. The magistrate judge recommended that Petitioner’s motion be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion because his motion challenges the judgment in this case and was filed within 28 days of its entry. The magistrate judge further concluded that Petitioner does not present any intervening change in law, new evidence, or manifest error of law or fact, or other extraordinary circumstances justifying alteration or amendment of the judgment, and he has not shown that his habeas petition was timely filed. Report 2. Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended the court deny the motion. Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com Having reviewed the motion, pleadings, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner’s Motion to Abate and Call for Reconsideration (Doc. 25). It is so ordered this 19th day of July, 2018. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order – Page 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.