Jackson v. Stephens Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 38

ORDER ACCEPTING 36 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 4/3/2017) (sss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TADAREOUS JACKSON,
ID # 1739419,
Petitioner,
vs.
LORIE DAVIS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15-CV-552-M

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After reviewing the objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge and conducting a de novo review of those parts of the Findings and
Conclusions to which objections have been made, 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, however, the Court notes that the word “could” is intended to be included before “have”
on page 10, third paragraph, line 7.
For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, the petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is
DENIED with prejudice.
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 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).
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 3rd day of April, 2017.

_________________________________
BARBARA M. G. LYNN
CHIEF JUDGE

2