Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Stewart v. Davis, 3:16-CV-3306-C-BN. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. Texas Number: infdco20180226620 Visitors: 1
Filed: Feb. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER SAM R. CUMMINGS , District Judge . On this day, the Court considered Petitioner Thomas G. Stewart's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, filed November 10, 2016, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, filed March 30, 2017, and Petitioner's Response, filed April 24, 2017. The United States Magistrate Judge entered his Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation on January 22, 2018, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. Neither party filed any written objecti
More

ORDER

On this day, the Court considered Petitioner Thomas G. Stewart's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed November 10, 2016, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, filed March 30, 2017, and Petitioner's Response, filed April 24, 2017. The United States Magistrate Judge entered his Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation on January 22, 2018, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. Neither party filed any written objections and the time to do so has now expired.

The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for clear error and finds none. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the above-styled and -numbered petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED as time-barred.

All relief not expressly granted by this Order is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), this Court finds that a certificate of appealability should be denied. Petitioner has failed to show that a reasonable jurist would find (1) this Court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," or (2) "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer