Young v. Davis, 3:18-CV-2517-C-BK. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
Number: infdco20181129876
Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SAM R. CUMMINGS , Senior District Judge . After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the undersigned Senior District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conc
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SAM R. CUMMINGS , Senior District Judge . After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the undersigned Senior District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Concl..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SAM R. CUMMINGS, Senior District Judge.
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned Senior District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.
For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, by separate judgment, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a Court order.
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 reasonable jurists 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).
Source: Leagle
