Aldridge v. Dir TDCJ

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 20 Report and Recommendations. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all motions by either party not previously ruled on are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 10/08/19. (lfs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
TRAVALYN KEON ALDRIDGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIR TDCJ, LORIE DAVIS-DIRECTOR
TDCJ-CID,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-00110-RWS

ORDER
Petitioner, Travalyn Keon Aldridge, an inmate confined at the John B. Connally Unit of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed
this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging several claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Caroline Craven,
United States Magistrate Judge, at Texarkana, Texas, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment
of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 20)
recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. Petitioner acknowledged receipt
of the Report and Recommendation. Docket No. 22. Neither party has filed objections to the
Magistrate’s report. Accordingly, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the
District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of
plain error, the parties are not entitled to appellate review of the unobjected to factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass

v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc).
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in the cause and agrees with the report
of the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute
permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations
‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sounds discretion of the judge warrants . . . .’ ”)
(quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). There being no grounds of plain error or
manifest injustice, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (Docket No. 20) as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Additionally, the Court is of the opinion that 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 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. 2000), 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

Page 2 of 3

further. Therefore, the 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. It is
.
therefore
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 20) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of this court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Finally,
it is
ORDERED that any and all motions by either party not previously ruled on are DENIED
AS MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8th day of October, 2019.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3