Bradley v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION, ORDER ADOPTING 20 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY re: 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Gerald L Bradley...denying 24 Second Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Objections to Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation. Petitioner Gerald Bradley's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. A certificate of appealability should not issue. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 3/7/2012) (klm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
GERALD L. BRADLEY,
VS.
RICK THALER,
Director, T.D.C.J.
Correctional Institutions Div.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO.4:11-CV-234-Y

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION,
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
In this action brought by petitioner Gerald L. Bradley under
28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court has made an independent review of the
following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:
1.

The pleadings and record;

2.

The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the United States magistrate judge filed on January 30,
2012; and

3.

The petitioner's written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United
States magistrate judge filed on February 23.1

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Petitioner’s
objections must be overruled, and that the petition for writ of
habeas corpus should be denied for the reasons stated in the
magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.
Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.
The second motion for extension of time to file supplemental
objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendation (doc.

1

Bradley’s objections were filed within the extended time provided by the
Court upon the granting, on February 15, of a motion for extension. Bradley has
now filed another motion for extension of time to file supplemental objections.
But as the Court already granted Bradley one extension of time, and as he has not
recited in this latest motion any specific objections that he was unable to
timely present, the Court concludes that the second motion for extension of time
should be denied.

24) is DENIED.
Petitioner Gerald Bradley’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
is DENIED.
Certificate of Appealability
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an appeal
may not proceed unless a certificate of appealability (COA) is
issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.2 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Proceedings now requires that the Court “must issue or
deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order
adverse to the applicant.”3 The COA may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”4 A petitioner satisfies this standard by showing
“that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s
resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists of reason
could

conclude

the

issues

presented

are

adequate

to

deserve

encouragement to proceed further.”5
Upon review and consideration of the record in the abovereferenced case as to whether petitioner Bradley has made a showing
that reasonable jurists would question this Court’s rulings, the
Court determines he has not and that a certificate of appealability
should not issue for the reasons stated in the January 30, 2012,
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States

2

See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

3

RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, RULE
11(a) (December 1, 2009).
4

28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006).

5

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003), citing Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

2

Magistrate Judge.6
Therefore, a certificate of appealability should not issue.
SIGNED March 7, 2012.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); see also 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006).

3