Brandon v. TDCJ Director
Filing
12
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 11 Findings and Recommendations on Case. The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this case, and has reviewed for clear error the findings, conclusions, and recommendation. The Court conc ludes that, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice as barred by limitations. A certificate of appealability should not issue. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 12/16/2011) (uls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
DOUGLAS MARTIN BRANDON,
VS.
RICK THALER,
Director, T.D.C.J.
Correctional Institutions Div.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO.4:11-CV-466-Y
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 of petitioner Douglas Martin Brandon, along
with the November 18, 2011, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge. The magistrate judge
gave the parties until December 9, 2011, to file written objections
to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation. As of the date of
this order, no written objections have been filed.
The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this
case, and has reviewed for clear error the findings, conclusions
and recommendation. The Court concludes that, for the reasons
stated by the magistrate judge, the petition for writ of habeas
corpus should be dismissed with prejudice as barred by limitations.
Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the
magistrate judge are ADOPTED.
Petitioner Douglas Martin Brandon’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
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. § 2253.1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
1
See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b).
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.”2 The COA may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”3 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.”4
Upon review and consideration of the record in the abovereferenced case as to whether petitioner Brandon 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 November 18, 2011,
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge.5
Therefore, a certificate of appealability should not issue.
SIGNED December 16, 2011.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, RULE
11(a) (December 1, 2009).
3
28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006).
4
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003), citing Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
5
See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); see also 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006).
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?