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)

Download PDF
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?