Olivarez v. Adkins

1 / 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
PEDRO SANTOS OLIVAREZ, JR.,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00161
CALLIE ADKINS, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On August 22, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his
“Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss 2241 Habeas Action” (D.E. 19).
Petitioner Pedro Santos Olivarez, Jr. (“Petitioner”) was provided proper notice of, and
opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation
(“M&R”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13.
Objections must point out with sufficient particularity any alleged error in the
magistrate judge’s analysis; otherwise, they do not constitute proper objections and will
not be considered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419,
421 (5th Cir. 1987) (“[P]arties filing objections must specifically identify those findings
objected to.”). Petitioner filed three documents with the Court after service of the M&R.
See D.E. 23, 25, 26. None of these documents relate to or address the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to dismiss the action under the Younger abstention doctrine. See D.E. 19;
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). In fact, Petitioner acknowledged that dismissal was
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 24, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00161 Document 28 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
appropriate in this case. See D.E. 26 (“I am aware that the Court cannot intervene on an
ongoing case”).
When no timely and proper objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 19), and all other relevant
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ORDERED on November 24, 2025.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00161 Document 28 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 2