Lerma v. Davis

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 13 Memorandum and Recommendations, GRANTS 8 Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment; DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action; and DENIES Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability. (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(scavazos, 1)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ROGER LERMA,
Petitioner,
VS.
LORIE DAVIS,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

March 06, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-00386

ORDER
The Court is in receipt of Respondent’s December 29, 2016, motion for
summary judgment, Dkt. No. 8; Petitioner’s April 24, 2017, response to the motion
for summary judgment,1 Dkt. No. 12; the May 22, 2017, Memorandum &
Recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred,
Dkt. No. 13; and Petitioner’s June 15, 2017, objection to the M&R, Dkt. No. 14.
The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objection is
frivolous, conclusory, general, or contains no arguments that the M&R has not
already considered. See Dkt. Nos. 13, 14; Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n,
834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987) (determining that a district court need not consider
frivolous, conclusive, or general objections). After independently reviewing the
record and considering the applicable law, the Court adopts the proposed M&R in
its entirety. Dkt. No. 13. Thus, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection. Dkt.
No. 14.

It is unclear whether Petitioner is still in custody. See Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Roger
Lerma, TDCJ No. 00886579, Parole Review Status, https://offenser.tdcj.texas.gov/OffenderSearch
(“Last Parole Decision . . . Approved on 04/03/2017 . . . Approved with completion of a program prior
to release.”); Dkt. No. 12 at 8 (Petitioner’s April 24, 2017, response to Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment, which states, “Once the line class was restored and the Petitioner was given
back his custody level as well, the Petitioner immediately made parole, and is now waiting to
leave.”); Dkt. No. 14 at 10 (Petitioner’s June 8, 2017, objection to the M&R, which lists Petitioner’s
address as “McConnell Unit.”).
1

1/2

The Court hereby:


GRANTS Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 8;



DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action; and



DENIES Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability.

The Court will order entry of final judgment separately.

SIGNED this 5th day of March, 2018.
___________________________________
Hilda Tagle
Senior United States District Judge

2/2