Mayes v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 8 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Curtis Mayes, Jr. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 1/6/2025) (nht)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION
CURTIS MAYES

JR.,

Petitioner,
v.

2:24-CV-163-Z-BR

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation (“FCR”) of the United
States Magistrate Judge to dismiss the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF
No. 3. No objections to the FCR have been filed. After making an independent review of the
pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge
is correct. It is therefore ORDERED

that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and the case is DISMISSED.
Additionally, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability (“COA”).! A district court
may deny a COA sua sponte and without requiring further briefing or argument. See Alexander v.
Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). Considering the record in this case and pursuant to
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255
proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), and ADOPTING and INCORPORATING the Magistrate
Judge’s FCR, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find

' Because the Motion to Vacate is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, codified as amended
at 28 U.S.C. § 2253, a COA is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” before an appeal may proceed. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)); Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1076 (Sth Cir. 1997)
(noting §§ 2254 and 2255 actions require a COA).

“it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or
“debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000).
SO ORDERED.

January , 2025.

VA

i

MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE