Mendez v. Davis, Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 51

Order Accepting 37 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment is DENIED; and (2) Petitioner's remaining claims are constr ued as filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and are TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Clerk's Office is directed to open a new civil action, nature of suit 530, with direct assignment to District Judge Boyle and Magistrate Judge Rutherford and terminate the motion in this case. Case 3:18-cv-01994 opened. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 8/1/2018) (rekc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

ISRAEL CALLERO MENDEZ, 01679093,
Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas
Dept. Of Criminal Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:14-CV-2973-B (BT)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in
this case. Plaintiff filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review of those
portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made. The objections
are overruled, and the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment based on the Court’s denial of Petitioner’s second motion for extension of time to file an
appeal is DENIED; and (2) Petitioner’s remaining claims are construed as filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 and are TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1631.1 The Clerk’s Office is directed to open a new civil action,
nature of suit 530, with direct assignment to District Judge Boyle and Magistrate Judge Rutherford

1

An order transferring a successive application to the court of appeals is not a final order
requiring a certificate of appealability. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015).

and terminate the motion in this case.
SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2018.

_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE