IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 20, 2020 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

GERARDO LOPEZ, § § Petitioner, § VS. § CIVIL NO. 2:19-CV-112 § LORIE DAVIS, § § Defendant. §

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), Dkt. No. 23. The Court is also in receipt of Gerardo Lopez’s (“Lopez”) Objections, Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 27. For the reasons below, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. Dkt. No. 23. I. M&R The M&R recommends granting Respondents motion for summary judgment in part and dismissing Lopez’s

petition as unexhausted. Dkt. No. 23 at 7. The M&R also recommends denying any request for a Certificate of Appealability.

In his objections, Gerardo Lopez provides numerous documents regarding his attempts to contact his attorney, his attorney’s alleged ineffective representation and Lopez’s attempt to appeal his state case. Dkt. Nos. 25, 26. Lopez also provides numerous legal citations. Dkt. No. 27. The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations de novo.

(b)(1). But if the objections are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature the court need not conduct a de novo review. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n,

(5th Cir. 1987). Here, none of Lopez’s objections relate to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss the case for lack of exhaustion in state court. See Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 27. As the M&R states: “To the extent that Lopez seeks to raise claims either on the merits of his conviction and sentence or of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must first raise them in an Article 11.07 application in state court.” Dkt. No. 23 at 6. Accordingly, the Court concludes Lopez’s objections are frivolous. See Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 27; Battle,

. II. Conclusion After independently viewing the record and the applicable law, the Court ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 23, in its entirety. The Court OVERRULES Lopez’s objections, Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 27. The Court hereby: e GRANTS IN PART Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 19, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Lopez’s § 2254 petition for lack of exhaustion. e DENIES any request for a Certificate of Appealability. The Court will direct entry of final judgment separately.

SIGNED this 19th day of February, Senior United States District Judge

2/2