Houston v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
14
ORDER ACCEPTING 13 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 11/13/2013) (tln)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EDWARD HOUSTON,
Petitioner,
V.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 3:13-CV-2291-B
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in
this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
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),
the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the
Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its
finding that the Petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s
“assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would
find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and
“debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000).1
In the event the Petitioner will file a notice of appeal, the Court notes that:
(
)
(X)
the Petitioner will proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
the Petitioner will need to pay the $455.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of November, 2013.
_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December
1, 2009, reads as follows:
(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order,
the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the
court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the
denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to
appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district
court issues a certificate of appealability.
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?