Jones v. Stephens Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 32

ORDER ACCEPTING 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The 3 petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. The petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 5/4/2016) (sss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CARL DAVID JONES,
ID # 1517939,
Petitioner,
vs.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:14-CV-344-M (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 for plain error, I am 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, by separate judgment, the petition for
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED.
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, the petitioner is DENIED a
Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation as supplemented 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
If the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account.
SIGNED this 4th day of May, 2016.

_________________________________
BARBARA M. G. LYNN
CHIEF 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.

2