UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 03, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION ALEX DAVILA, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Civil Action No. 6:21-CV-00013 § BOBBY LUMPKIN, § § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is the September 28, 2021 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby. (Dkt. No. 18). In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Libby recommends that the Court grant Respondent Bobby Lumpkin’s Motion for Summary Judgment and deny pro se Petitioner Alex Davila’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

. The Parties received proper notice and the opportunity to object to the proposed findings and recommendations.1 See

(b)(1). Davila filed timely objections. (Dkt. No. 19). The Court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C). However, the Court need not consider objections that “merely reurg[e] arguments contained in the original petition.” Edmond v. Collins,

, 293

1 Rule 72 normally governs review of a magistrate judge’s M&R. The comment to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, states that Rule 72 is inapplicable in the habeas corpus context. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition; accord Nara v. Frank,

(3d Cir. 2007). n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993). Relevant here, a court must liberally construe a pro se document. Erickson v. Pardus,

,

,

(2007) (per curiam). Davila raises one objection to the M&R. (Dkt. No. 19 at 1-2). He argues that the testimony presented during his trial about his past unadjudicated offenses involving sexual misconduct with a child should have been barred by the Fifth Amendment. (Id.). This is substantially the same argument that Davila made in his original habeas petition, (Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7), which the M&R addressed, (Dkt. No. 18 at 7-12). Thus, it need not be considered, and the Court overrules the objection. See Edmond,

n.7. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the M&R as the opinion of the Court. The Court GRANTS Respondent Bobby Lumpkin’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 16). The Court further DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner Alex Davila’s habeas petition under

. (Dkt. No. 1). It is SO ORDERED. Signed on December 30, 2021. R J

DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE