Bonner v. Stephens

Filing 34

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY: The Court DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus. In the event Petitioner files a notice of appeal, the Court notes that Petitioner will proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Ordered by Chief Judge Jorge A Solis on 4/18/2016) (sss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ROBERT W. BONNER,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS,
Director, TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:13-CV-4649-P

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The United States Magistrate Judge has issued Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
(“FCR”) in this case. Petitioner has asserted numerous objections to the FCR. See Petr.’s Written
Objections, doc. 32. After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the FCR
and the objections to the FCR, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court finds that the
Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. The Court has conducted a de novo
review and determination as to the issues to which Petitioner has specifically objected. Having
reviewed the remainder of the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
for clear error, it is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the
Court hereby ACCEPTS the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the Findings and
Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts,
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 FCR filed in this case in support of its finding that
Petitioner has failed to show that (1) reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong” or (2) 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 Petitioner files a notice of appeal, the Court notes that Petitioner will proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of April, 2016.

_________________________________
JORGE A. SOLIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

As amended on December 1, 2009, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts 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