Davis v. Director, TDCJ-CID

- 1 -
No. 6:24-cv-00159
Darryl Glenn Davis,
Petitioner,
v.
Director, TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.
O R D E R
Petitioner, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice proceeding pro se, brought this action to challenge his
state conviction for aggravated assault. Doc. 1. The case was re-
ferred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending
that the petition be denied on the merits. Doc. 18 at 22. Petitioner
filed written objections. Doc. 21.
The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, the “objections
must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous,
conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the
district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th
Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass
v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en-
title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis-
trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28
F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). When there have been no
timely objections to a report, or the objections are improper, “the
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes
to 1983 amendment.
For the most part, petitioner’s objections merely reiterate the
same conclusory assertions from his petition regarding ineffective
Case 6:24-cv-00159-JCB-KNM Document 22 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
assistance of counsel, improperly admitted evidence, excessive
punishment, and prosecutorial misconduct. The magistrate judge
thoroughly addressed these arguments and the court finds no er-
ror in that analysis. Petitioner’s objections also raise new argu-
ments and facts not present in the original petition or in the reply
to the government’s response. Docs. 1, 17. However, as explained
above, the court need not consider these arguments as they were
not raised before the magistrate judge. Even if the court were to
consider such arguments, petitioner has not established any error
warranting relief.
Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo and be-
ing satisfied that it contains no error, the court overrules peti-
tioner’s objections and accepts the report’s findings and recom-
mendations. Petitioner’s habeas petition is denied and this action
is dismissed with prejudice. The court also sua sponte denies a
certificate of appealability. Any pending motions are denied as
moot.
So ordered by the court on January 27, 2026.
J. CAM PB EL L BA RK ER
United States District Judge
Case 6:24-cv-00159-JCB-KNM Document 22 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>