Buggs v. Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 33

Order Accepting 32 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 12/20/2016) (twd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
STEPHEN LYNN BUGGS, #1477843,
Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-3095-L
(Consolidated with Civil Action Nos.
3:15-CV-3096-L and 3:15-CV-3097-L)

ORDER
On November 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending
that the court dismiss with prejudice this habeas action, which was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order.
After considering the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that
the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the
court. Accordingly, the court dismisses with prejudice this habeas case.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
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 determines that Petitioner has failed to

*

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides as follows:

(a)
Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the
court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court
issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but
Order – Page 1

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). In support of this
determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. In the event that
Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered this 20th day of December, 2016.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A
motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an
order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues
a certificate of appealability.
Order – Page 2