1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

DIANNE L. WEAVER, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JERRY PARKER, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-454-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Dianne L. Weaver, proceeding pro se, filed this case using a form to 

bring a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The case was referred to 

United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

On October 6, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 8. Plaintiff filed written objections. Docket No. 9.1

Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court 

reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 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. Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

1 Non-party Philip J. Emerson, Jr. also submitted written objections to the report. Docket No. 10. 

Mr. Emerson is not a party to this lawsuit, and his objections do not assert facts showing that he is 

a necessary party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a). Thus, Mr. Emerson does not 

have standing in this case, and his objections are not properly before the Court. 

Case 6:23-cv-00454-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 707
2 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

Plaintiff’s objections do not demonstrate a basis for federal jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff continues to assert that she is seeking habeas corpus relief. The purpose of 

habeas corpus, however, is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody and 

“it cannot be used properly for any other purpose.” Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 

933, 936 (5th Cir. 1976). Habeas corpus cannot be utilized as a “springboard to 

adjudicate matters foreign to the question of the legality of custody.” Id. Plaintiff 

does not allege that she is in custody and has not stated a viable basis for pursuing a 

habeas corpus claim. Additionally, she does not allege facts showing any other basis 

for federal jurisdiction. 

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the 

Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, 

the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 8) as the 

opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2nd November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00454-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 11/02/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 708