□ Southern District of Texas _ ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT December 03, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION . KIRK JOHN NORTHUP, § Petitioner, VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-146"° □ BOBBY LUMPKIN, . Respondent. .

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION □ □□

‘Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum □□□ Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 13). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R: Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. Petitioner timely filed objections to the M&R:

Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, thie record, the applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Petitioner’s objections were directed,

(b)(1), the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections in their entirety. (D.E. 14). The issue that the Magistrate Judge analyzed when screening the habeas corpus petition was whether Petitioner correctly raised a claim for actual innocence in a federal habeas case. (D.E. 13). Petitioner challenged his robbery conviction, raising a single claim that he is innocent and that another man committed the robbery. (D.E. 1). The Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner pled a “freestanding claim” that “newly discovered evidence” shows his

1/2

innocence, and that is not a cognizable claim for a habeas petition pursuant to

. (D.E. 13, p, 2). The Court agrees. As stated in Herrera v. Collins,

(1993), “a claim of ‘actual innocence’ is not itself a constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.” As the Magistrate Judge pointed out, Petitioner raised no other constitutional claims in his petition, nor did he raise any in his objections to the M&R. See (D.E. 1; D.E. 13, p. 3; D.E. 14). For this reason, Petitioner’s objections are overruled. (D.E. 14). Conclusion (1) Petitioner’s D.E. 14 objections are OVERRULED. (2) The Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 13). (3) Petitioner’s

petition (D.E. 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to the screening provisions in Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A final judgment will be entered separately.

DAVID S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas December psf, 2021 .

2/2