Reyes v. Stephens
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 28 Memorandum and Recommendations, granting 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(vrios, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
August 09, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL NO. 2:15-CV-454
Orlando Reyes (“Reyes”) is a Texas state prisoner, whose habeas claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 2254 were filed with the Court on October 27, 2015.
Dkt. No. 1. The Court has before it the Government’s motion for summary
judgment, Dkt. No. 24, Reyes’ response, Dkt. No. 27, the Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) of the magistrate judge to whom this case was referred,
Dkt. No. 28, and Reyes’s objections to the M&R, Dkt. No. 32.
The Court adopts the M&R’s recitation of the background of this case. Dkt.
No. 28 at 2-6. In brief, Reyes alleges that his constitutional rights were violated
during trial and appellate proceedings related to his 2012 conviction, by a Nueces
County jury, of the lesser included offense of indecency with a child. See Dkt. Nos. 1,
28 at 1-6. Reyes is serving a fifty-year term in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice – Correctional Institutions Division (“TDCJ-CID”) for this conviction,
enhanced by prior convictions, and is currently incarcerated at the Stiles Unit in
Beaumont, Texas. Dkt. No. 28 at 1.
The Court reviews objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made”); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). In both his federal habeas petition and his response to the Government’s
instant motion, Reyes alleges various constitutional violations, including claims
that insufficient evidence was used to convict him, and that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. Dkt. No. 28 at 6. Yet Reyes’s
objections to the M&R contain no real challenge to the proceedings below, and
largely restate the claims raised in his response to the Government’s motion.
Compare Dkt. Nos. 27 and 32. The Court agrees with the M&R that Reyes has
failed to state a claim that he is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Accordingly, after independently reviewing the record and considering the
recommendations; GRANTS the Government’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt.
No. 24; DENIES Reyes’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. No. 1; and
DENIES Reyes a certificate of appealability. The Court further DIRECTS the
Clerk to close this case after entering the accompanying judgment.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 9th day of August, 2017.
Senior United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?