Davis v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
13
ORDER ACCEPTING 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The petitioner is further ADMONISHED that he may be subject to sanctions if he continues to raise claims that were or could have been raised in his previous federal petition in this Court without first seeking and receiving authorization from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 6/16/2014) (twd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MICHAEL LEE DAVIS, ID # 933173, )
Petitioner,
)
vs.
)
)
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,
)
Texas Department of Criminal
)
Justice-CID,
)
Respondent.
)
No. 3:14-CV-1320-K
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. ยง 636(b)(1), the undersigned District
Judge 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 Court hereby TRANSFERS the petition for habeas
corpus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant to Henderson
v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002) and In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir.
1997).
The petitioner is further ADMONISHED that he may be subject to sanctions if
he continues to raise claims that were or could have been raised in his previous federal
petition in this Court without first seeking and receiving authorization from the Fifth
Circuit to file a successive petition.
SO ORDERED.
Signed June 16th, 2014.
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?