Baker v. USA
Filing
22
ORDER ACCEPTING 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 7/16/2021) (ykp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
KEVIN BAKER,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 3:16-cv-1752-N-BT
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case,
and the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
dated July 1, 2021, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the Court. The Movant’s objections are overruled.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are accepted. Considering the
record in this case, 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 Movant 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 [motion] 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 Movant files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2021.
___________________________
DAVID C. GODBEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?