Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Stiff v. Collier, 3:17-CV-1615-M. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. Texas Number: infdco20190228e82 Visitors: 27
Filed: Feb. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BARBARA M.G. LYNN , Chief District Judge . After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge for plain error, I am 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
More

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge for plain error, I am 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, Bryan Collier, the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, is SUBSTITUTED as the proper respondent in this case, and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles shall be terminated as respondent; and the petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED with prejudice.

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, the 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.

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