Meeks v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
19
Order Adopting 16 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 18 MOTION Request to Review Cause De Novo (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 7/26/2018) (ykp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JAMES ARTHUR MEEKS III,
ID #543366,
Petitioner,
vs.
LORIE DAVIS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:18-CV-1537-D
ORDER
After reviewing de novo all relevant matters of record in this case, including the June 28,
2018 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and
petitioner’s July 10, 2018 objections, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court is of the
opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and they are adopted
as the findings and conclusions of the court. 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 as barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner’s July
10, 2018 request to review cause de novo is denied as unnecessary because the court has conducted
de novo review in this case.
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.
(X)
petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED.
July 26, 2018.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
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?