Elam v. Director TDCJ
ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/26/15. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:13cv219
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jason Elam, 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 Zack Hawthorn,
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 recommending this petition be dismissed as barred by the applicable statute of
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. No objections were filed to the Report and
Accordingly, 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 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).
In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether his petition is barred by
the applicable statute of limitations is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and
legal questions raised 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 26 day of October, 2015.
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?