UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 18, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

CALVIN SUMRELL, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00188 § BOBBY LUMPKIN, § § Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

On June 16, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 22), recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss (D.E. 19) this habeas corpus proceeding be granted. The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 22), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion to dismiss (D.E. 19) is GRANTED and Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is DENIED. In the event that Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability, that request is DENIED. ORDERED on July 18, 2025. eke GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2