Case 6:13-cv-00326-MHS-KNM Document 20 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 299
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ROBERT C. PUTNAM
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13cv326
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Robert Putnam, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 complaining of the legality of his confinement. This Court ordered
that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and
(3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United
States Magistrate Judges.
Putnam has filed a motion asking that his petition be dismissed, and the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending that this motion be granted. Putnam received a copy of this Report
on or before August 2, 2013, but filed no objections thereto; accordingly, he is barred from de novo
review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon
grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile
Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243
(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). It is accordingly
Case 6:13-cv-00326-MHS-KNM Document 20 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 300
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 18) is hereby ADOPTED as
the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal (docket no. 17) is
GRANTED and the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus be and hereby is
DISMISSED without prejudice on the motion of the Petitioner. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
It is SO ORDERED.. ____________________________________MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 19th day of September, 2013.