Martinez v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID

S.D. Texas

Martinez v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID

DecidedSeptember 5, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00261

StatusUnknown

This text of Martinez v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID (Martinez v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID, (S.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED September 05, □□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner. Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ADAN MARTINEZ, UI, § § PETITIONER, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00261 § BOBBY LUMPKIN, § § RESPONDENT. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 14). The M&R recommends that the Court: (1) Grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. 13); (2) Deny Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, (D.E. 1); (3) Dismiss this case with prejudice as not cognizable, and alternatively, time-barred; and (4) Deny a certificate of appealability. (D.E. 14, p. 1). Petitioner filed written objections to the M&R. (D.E. 17). When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous,

' Petitioner previously filed a motion for extension of time to file objections. (D.E. 15). The Court granted the motion, allowing Petitioner until March 15, 2024, to file objections. (D.E. 16). Petitioner’s instant objections were filed in this Court on March 18, 2024. (D.E. 17, p. 1). As such, Petitioner’s objections may be untimely. However, given the proximity of the due date and the filed date (three days), the Court will consider the objections on the merits rather than disposing of the objections on timeliness. 1/3

conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982) (overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1416 (Sth Cir. 1996) (superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1))). Petitioner’s objections take issue with his Judgment of Conviction. (D.E. 17, p. 1). He argues that his Judgment of Conviction was improperly amended under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 329b. /d. at 2. Nowhere in his objections does he reference his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, let alone the M&R’s specific recommendations regarding cognizability, timeliness, or appealability. See id. at 1-2. Petitioner’s objections fail to “specifically identify those findings objected to.” Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8. Indeed, the objections “appear to raise unrelated issues that would not be properly joined in this case and do not show any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.” Corbett v. Aransas County, No. 2:23-CV-00111, 2024 WL 195962 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2024) (Ramos, J.), appeal docketed, No. 24-40162 (Sth Cir. March 12, 2024). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections. The Court reviews the portions of the M&R as to which no objection has been filed—in this instance the entire M&R—for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 17), and ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 14). Accordingly: (1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (D.E. 13).

2/3

(2) Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is DENIED. (D.E. 1). (3) Petitioner’s action is DISMISSED with prejudice as noncognizable and, alternatively, time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (DE. 1). (4) Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability.

A final judgment will be entered separately. SO ORDERED. \ S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas September ct 2024

3/3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED September 05, □□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner. Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ADAN MARTINEZ, UI, § § PETITIONER, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00261 § BOBBY LUMPKIN, § § RESPONDENT. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 14). The M&R recommends that the Court: (1) Grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. 13); (2) Deny Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, (D.E. 1); (3) Dismiss this case with prejudice as not cognizable, and alternatively, time-barred; and (4) Deny a certificate of appealability. (D.E. 14, p. 1). Petitioner filed written objections to the M&R. (D.E. 17). When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous,

' Petitioner previously filed a motion for extension of time to file objections. (D.E. 15). The Court granted the motion, allowing Petitioner until March 15, 2024, to file objections. (D.E. 16). Petitioner’s instant objections were filed in this Court on March 18, 2024. (D.E. 17, p. 1). As such, Petitioner’s objections may be untimely. However, given the proximity of the due date and the filed date (three days), the Court will consider the objections on the merits rather than disposing of the objections on timeliness. 1/3

conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982) (overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1416 (Sth Cir. 1996) (superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1))). Petitioner’s objections take issue with his Judgment of Conviction. (D.E. 17, p. 1). He argues that his Judgment of Conviction was improperly amended under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 329b. /d. at 2. Nowhere in his objections does he reference his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, let alone the M&R’s specific recommendations regarding cognizability, timeliness, or appealability. See id. at 1-2. Petitioner’s objections fail to “specifically identify those findings objected to.” Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8. Indeed, the objections “appear to raise unrelated issues that would not be properly joined in this case and do not show any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.” Corbett v. Aransas County, No. 2:23-CV-00111, 2024 WL 195962 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2024) (Ramos, J.), appeal docketed, No. 24-40162 (Sth Cir. March 12, 2024). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections. The Court reviews the portions of the M&R as to which no objection has been filed—in this instance the entire M&R—for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 17), and ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 14). Accordingly: (1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (D.E. 13).

2/3

(2) Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is DENIED. (D.E. 1). (3) Petitioner’s action is DISMISSED with prejudice as noncognizable and, alternatively, time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (DE. 1). (4) Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability.

A final judgment will be entered separately. SO ORDERED. \ S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas September ct 2024

3/3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martinez v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-lumpkin-director-tdcj-cid-txsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack