Hughes v. Director, TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2018cv02741 - Document 27 (N.D. Tex. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 5/3/2021) (jmg)

Download PDF
Hughes v. Director, TDCJ-CID Doc. 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BRANDON DONYA HUGHES, Petitioner, DIRECTOR, TDCJ.CID, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-2741-C-BN ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United States Magistrate Judge therein advising that the Court should deny Petitioner's application for a w t of habeas corpus and request for an evidentiary hearing.r The Court conducts ade novo review ofthose portions ofthe Magistrate Judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. $ 636(bXl)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject ofa timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir' 1989)' After due consideration and having conducted a de noyo review, the court finds that Petitioner's objections should be oVERRULED. The Court has further conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are ADOPTED as r petitioner, who is represented by counsel, filed objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation on April 21,2021' Dockets.Justia.com the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus and request for an evidentiary hearing be DENIED. SO ORDERED _rt this 4 ,-/ day of May, 2021. L S p GS OR STATES t 2 CT JUDGE

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.