Dawson v. 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas Co., Texas

Filing 11

ORDER ACCEPTING 9 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 5/21/2018) (ykp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TIMMY ANTONIO DAWSON
(TDCJ No. 681033),
Petitioner,
V.
291ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF DALLAS CO., TEXAS,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:18-CV-759-M

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a
Recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed
the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding
none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge.
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
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

1

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).1
In the event Petitioner will file a notice of appeal, the Court notes that
Petitioner must pay the $505.00 filing fee or file a motion for leave proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal.
Further, because Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment invoking Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) is in substance a successive habeas application, the
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to open for statistical purposes a new Section 2254 case
(nature of suit 530 directly assigned, per Special Order 3-250, to Chief Judge Barbara
M. G. Lynn and United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan) and to close the
same on the basis of the order.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on
December 1, 2009, reads as follows:
1

(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 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.

2

SO ORDERED this 21st day of May, 2018.

3