Lewis v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report and Recommendation 23 is ADOPTED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the case isDISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions not previously ruled on are DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 12/18/14. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

BILLY WAYNE LEWIS, #1057794

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv499

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner Billy Wayne Lewis, a prisoner confined at the Coffield Unit of the Texas prison
system, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is challenging the revocation of his parole. The petition was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a Report and Recommendation
concluding that the petition should be denied. The Petitioner has filed objections.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contain his proposed findings
of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration,
and having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner, the Court is of the opinion
that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct.
The Court specifically observes that the state trial court thoroughly considered the Petitioner’s
corresponding state application for a writ of habeas corpus and issued extensive findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the application without written order
on findings of the trial court without a hearing. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”) imposes a “highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, and demands that
state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010)
1

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Under AEDPA, a petitioner is not entitled to relief
unless he shows that the state court findings resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved
an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States, or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of
the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The
Petitioner in this case did not satisfy the requirements of § 2254(d). He failed to show that he is
entitled to federal habeas corpus relief. The Court thus adopts the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (docket entry #23) is ADOPTED. It is
.
further
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the case is
DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. It is finally
ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 18th day of December, 2014.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2