Macon v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 22 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Bruce William Macon. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 12/30/2016) (ndt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BRUCE WILLIAM MACON
(TDCJ No. 1568331),
LORIE DAVIS, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,
After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this
case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the
court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered
that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), Rule
11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),
the court denies a certificate of appealability. The court adopts and incorporates by
reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation filed in
this case 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 petitioner files a notice of appeal,
petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.
December 30, 2016.
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
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?