Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ane SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION BENINO DELAGARZA, § § Petitioner, § V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00055 BOBBY LUMPKIN, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 27). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, dismiss Petitioner’s claim for habeas corpus relief, and deny a certificate of appealability. Jd. at 2. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See

(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. Two weeks after the M&R was mailed to Petitioner, the Court received Petitioner’s Response to Respondent. (D.E. 28). Petitioner did not date this Response, so the Court cannot determine whether it was timely. See

Even assuming the Response was timely, it does not object to the M&R. Instead, Petitioner “disagree[s] with [Respondent] on all arguments and ask[s] the court to refer to Petitioners memorandum and all Exhibits when considering decision.”

. Petitioner then reasserts the grounds for habeas relief raised in his Petition and Memorandum in Support. Compare (D.E. 28) with (D.E. 1; D.E. 11). Thus, the Response does not properly raise any objections to the M&R. See Pelko v. Perales, No. 2:23-CV-00339,

, at *1—2 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.) (first citing FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); then

1/2

citing Malacara v. Garber,

(5th Cir. 2003); and then citing Edmond v. Collins,

, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993)) (“An objection must point out with particularity the alleged error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Otherwise, it does not constitute a proper objection and will not be considered.”). When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 27). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (D.E. 26), DISMISSES Petitioner’s claim for habeas corpus relief, (D.E. 1), and DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court will enter final judgment separately. CM DAVI ORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas March /8742025

2/2