Miller v. Director TDCJ

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 6/16/15. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
RYAN MILLER

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:14cv67

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Ryan Miller, an inmate confined at the LeBlanc Unit of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brought this 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, at Texarkana, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends this petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for
want of prosecution.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available
evidence. No objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge were
filed by the parties.
Furthermore, the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An
appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a judge issues
a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). The standard for granting
a certificate of appealability, like that for granting a certificate of probable cause to appeal under
prior law, 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); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1982). In making that
substantial showing, the petitioner need not establish that he should 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 is 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).
Here, the petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to
debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions advanced by the petitioner are not
novel and have been consistently resolved adversely to his position. In addition, the questions
.
presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the petitioner has failed
to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a
certificate of appealability shall not be issued.
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.
SIGNED this 16th day of June, 2015.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2