UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 30, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION

ALBERTO GUTIERREZ, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:25-CV-00053 § ERIC GUERRERO, § § Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a habeas petition under

. (D.E. 1.) and a motion that he calls a “motion to temporarily set aside relief from further proceedings under 60(b)(1).” (D.E. 9). On September 22, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R, D.E. 10), recommending that Petitioner’s motions be denied. Petitioner filed his objections (D.E. 15), dated October 2, 2025, and received by the Court on October 7, 2025. 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Malacara v. Garber,

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

, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that right to de novo review is not invoked when a petitioner merely re-urges arguments contained in the original petition). Here, Petitioner does not identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 1 / 2 Instead, Petitioner simply re-urges his prior requests. And he does so despite the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction at this time to grant his requests. Consequently, the objections ace OVERRULED. Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as Petitioner’s objections, and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo disposition of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation to which objections were specifically directed, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motions (D.E. 1, 9) are DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ORDERED on October 29, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2