Reyes v. Stephens

Filing 34

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)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ORLANDO REYES, Petitioner, VS. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Respondent. § § § § § § § § August 09, 2017 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL NO. 2:15-CV-454 ORDER 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 1/2 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 applicable law, the Court adopts the M&R’s proposed findings and 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. ___________________________________ Hilda Tagle Senior United States District Judge 2/2

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?