Belger v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 16

Order Accepting 15 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 14 Objection to Findings and Recommendations filed by James Belger. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 12/18/2018) (ndt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JAMES BELGER, #1406069,
Petitioner,
vs.
LORIE DAVIS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:18-CV-1646-B

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, 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 accepted 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 in Opposition to Magistrate’s Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation, received on November 26, 2018 (doc. 14), which consists of the petitioner’s
objections to the recommended dismissal of his habeas petition as time-barred, is construed as a
motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and DENIED.
In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the
record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the petitioner is DENIED a
Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 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 the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account.
SIGNED this 18th Day of December, 2018.

_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2