Coquat v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRJSTI DIVISION
JAMES LEWIS COQUAT, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
V. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00191
§
BOBBY LUMPKIN-DIRECTOR TDCJ-CID, 	§
§
Respondent. 	§
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R" ). (D.E. 25). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Respondent's motion for
summary judgment, (D .E. 15), dismiss Petitioner' s Petition for Habeas Corpus, (D.E. 1), and deny
Petitioner a certificate of appealability. (D.E. 25 , p. 1) . Petitioner filed written objections. (D .E.
26). After review, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objections, (D.E. 26), and ADOPTS the
M&R in its entirety, (D .E. 25). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion for
summary judgment, (D .E. 15), and DISMISSES Petitioner' s petition, (D.E. 1).
I. Law
When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the
district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(l)(C). As
to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual
findings and conclusions oflaw. United States v. Wilson , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per
curiam). A party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge's
analysis. Pelko v. Perales, No. 2:23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S .D. Tex. May 3, 2024)
(Ramos, J.). "Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district
1/3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:24-cv-00191 Document 27 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

court." Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en bane) (overruled
on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1416 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
bane)) (superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(l)). When a party raises a new
argument in his objections that was not first presented to the magistrate judge, it is not properly
before the Court. United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover,
"[o]bjections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and
will not be considered." Neisen v. Nueces Cnty., No. 2:24-CV-00088, 2025 WL 1111549, at *1
(S.D. Tex. Apr. 15 , 2025) (Morales, J.) (citing Edmonds v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir.
1993)).
II. Analysis
Petitioner raises two objections to the M&R. (D.E. 26). The Court addresses those below. 1
First, Petitioner objects that Respondent's motion for summary judgment should be denied
because Respondent has also filed an answer in this case. (D.E. 26 , p. 3-4). The Court is aware of
another federal district's practice of resolving habeas cases by denying motions for summary
judgment where the State has filed an answer and the Court is capable of resolving the petition
directly on the basis of the answer alone. Storey v. Stephens, No. 4:ll-CV-433-O, 2014 WL
11498188, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2014) (O ' Connor, J.); Anderson v. Johnson , No. 2:99-CV-0389,
2001 WL 34144639, at * 1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2001) (Averitte, Mag. J.).
This Court is not bound by that practice and may resolve habeas petitions through summary
judgment ifit so chooses. Chavez v. Davis, No. 1:16-283, 2017 WL 6883908, at *5 (S.D. Tex . Aug.
17 , 2017) (Morgan, Mag. J.) ("Summary judgment is an appropriate vehicle through which to
1 As to any objection not explicitly discussed below, the Court OVERRRULES it as merely re-urging
arguments already presented to and rejected by the Magistrate Judge, Neisen, 2025 WL 1111549, at * 1, or
as lacking sufficient particularity. Pelko, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed
the entire record and M&R de novo and reaches the same conclusion as the Magistrate Judge.
2/3
Case 2:24-cv-00191 Document 27 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

resolve a habeas petition, where the facts otherwi se support such resolution." (citing Goodrum v.
Quarterman, 547 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2008 )) , adopted, No. B-16-283, 2018 WL 339540, at *1
(S.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2018) (Harren, J .) (citation modified). As there wou ld be no substantive
difference whether the Court grants Respondent's motion for summary judgment or denies the
petition outright, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objection.
Second, Petitioner objects that the M&R did not consider Petitioner's cited case, United
States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1999). (D .E . 26, p. 7- 8). However, the M&R did
address Petitioner's cited case in a footnote, (D.E. 25 , p. 16 n.9), along with his broader argument.
Id. at 15-18. The M&R therefore did not err, and the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objection.
III. Conclusion
Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the
app li cable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Petitioner 's
objections 	are 	directed, 28 	U.S .C. 	§ 636(b)(l)(C), the 	Court 	OVERRULES 	Petitioner 's
objections, (D .E. 26), and ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety, (D.E. 25). The Court therefore
GRANTS Respondent's motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 15) , and DISMISSES Petitioner 's
petition. (D.E. 1). The Court will enter a final judgment separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Corpus ~ hfjsti, Texas
March ~ 	2026
3/3
DA 	S. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00191 Document 27 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3