Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-cv-00183
05-27-2022
JORGE ARELLANO, “Petitioner, ” v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, “Respondent.”
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Rolando Olvera United States District Judge
Before the Court are these pleadings: Petitioner's “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody” (Dkt. No. 1) and “Attached Memorandum in Support of Federal 2254 Petition” (Dkt. No. 2) (together, “Petition”), Respondent's “Motion for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support” (Dkt. No. 16), Petitioner's “Written Objections to the Respondent's Motion for Summa[ry] Judg[ment] with Brief in Support Rec[ei]ved by Petitioner Through Prison Legal Mail on March 22, 2022” (Dkt. No. 22) and “Written Objections to the Respondent's Motion for Summa[ry] Judg[ment] with Brief in Support Rec[ei]ved by Petitioner Through Prison Legal Mail on March 22, 2022” (Dkt. No. 23) (together, “Response”), “Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation” (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 24), and Petitioner's “Written Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations” (“Objections”) (Dkt. No. 27).
“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). In respect to the portions of the R&R, to which there were no objections, the district court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). Finding no clear error, abuse of discretion, or finding contrary to law, the sections of the R&R with no objection are ADOPTED.
Petitioner's objections are the exact arguments raised in Petitioner's Response (Dkt. Nos. 22, 23). Dkt. No. 27. As the R&R analyzed, Petitioner's claims are time-barred. Petitioner failed to show he was entitled to statutory or equitable tolling. Thus, Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED.
The R&R (Dkt. No. 24) is ADOPTED. Petitioner's Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time-barred; the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and the Clerk of Court is ORDERED to close this case.