Ramos v. Guerrero

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00152
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 14, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

ARMANDO RAMOS, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-152 § ERIC GUERRERO, § § Respondent. §

ORDER

In October 2024, Plaintiff Armando Ramos, representing himself, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) challenging his state conviction for four counts of sexual assault of a child. On two of the counts, he was sentenced to 50 years each, and on the remaining two counts, he was sentenced to 20 years each. The trial judge ordered the two 50-year sentences to run consecutively, the two 20-year sentences to run consecutively, and the two sets of sentences to run concurrently. (See State Court Records, Doc. 32) In his now third federal application for habeas corpus relief, Ramos challenges his consecutive sentences and claims ineffective assistance of counsel during trial. (Petition, Doc. 1) A United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Ramos’s petition be dismissed with prejudice based on Ramos raising the same claims successively as his first federal habeas petition. (R&R, Doc. 37) Ramos filed untimely objections. (Objections, Doc. 40) The Court will exercise its discretion and consider Ramos’s late-filed objections in this case. See Loredo v. Barnhart, 210 Fed. Appx. 417, 418 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988) (confirming the district court’s discretion to consider late-filed objections to a report and recommendation)). As a result, the Court reviews the portions of the Report and 1 / 2 Recommendation to which Ramos objects de novo and all other portions for clear error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). With respect to Ramos’s objections, the Court finds them without merit and that they do not raise additional issues that the Report and Recommendation did not address. The Court also finds no clear error on the remaining portions of the Report and Recommendation. As a result, Ramos is not entitled to relief on any of his claims. The Court OVERRULES Ramos’s objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 37). It is: ORDERED that Plaintiff Armando Ramos’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. In addition, the Court finds that no outstanding issue would be debatable among jurists of reason, and that Ramos fails to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, the Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. Signed on August 14, 2025. co— Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. United States District Judge

2/2