Garrison v. Director, TDCJ-CID
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 19 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADO PTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 12/30/2016. (daj, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WILLIAM SCOTT GARRISON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-113
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, William Scott Garrison, an inmate confined at the Clements Unit with the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brings this
petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine Nowak, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Sherman, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied o the
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings. No objections
to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge were filed by the parties.
Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct,
and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case
in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying post-conviction collateral relief may not proceed
unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 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 establish
that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues 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 whether to grant a certificate of appealability should be resolved in favor of
the movant, 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, petitioner has not shown that any of the issues would be subject to debate among
jurists of reason. The questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further.
Therefore, petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of certificate of
appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued.
SIGNED this 30th day of December, 2016.
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?