Sandles v. Thaler

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling objections and adopting the magistrate judge's 13 Report and Recommendation. A certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter.. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 7/12/2013. (bjc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
TONY EDWARD SANDLES

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10cv209

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Tony Edward Sandles, an inmate confined in the Stiles Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed the
above-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate
Judge, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable orders of this Court. The
Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge concerning this matter. The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be denied.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Report
and Recommendation.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in light of the applicable law.
After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the objections are without merit.
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. A final judgment shall be entered in accordance with
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
In addition, the Court is of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas relief may not proceed unless a

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a certificate of
appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal
constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke,
362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner need not
demonstrate that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues
raised in the petition are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the
issues in a different manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to
proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding granting a certificate of
appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be
considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000).
In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether his claims are
meritorious is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions
presented by petitioner have been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the
questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate
of appealability shall not issue in this matter.

SIGNED this the 12 day of July, 2013.

____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge