Terron v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
16
ORDER ACCEPTING 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Jose Terron. (Ordered by Judge Jorge A Solis on 8/5/2014) (cea)
AOO- 5 2014
JOSE TERRON,
ID # 1672458,
Petitioner,
vs.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
· .: Cfi;RK. U.S"2Jl~ICT COURT
eputy
No. 3:13-CV-2292-P (BH)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in
accordance with 28 U.S. C. § 63 6(b )(1 ), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions
of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the
Court. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, the petition for habeas corpus is DENIED with prejudice.
In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the
record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, petitioner is DENIED a
Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 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 that petitioner files a notice of appeal, he is informed that he must pay the
$505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is accompanied
by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account.
SIGNED this 51h day of August, 2014.
r1&:;:;f:o
~Jif A. SOLIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
2
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?