Banda v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID, 3:16-CV-2406-G (BH). (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
Number: infdco20171128d23
Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE A. JOE FISH , 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 and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the findings and conclusio
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE A. JOE FISH , 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 and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the findings and conclusion..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
A. JOE FISH, 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 and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court 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, the petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.
In accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the magistrate judge, petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. The court adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions and recommendation in support of its finding that the petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "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).
If the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle