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)

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