Holbert, Sr. v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION KENNETH RAY HOLBERT SR.., TDCJ-CID No. 2389106 Petitioner, v. 2:24-CV-050-Z-BR BOBBY LUMPKIN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge to deny the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the petitioner in this case (ECF No. 1) and deny Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13). No objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the District Judge concludes that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 15) are ADOPTED, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, and the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 424 (Sth Cir. 2011). 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 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, 529 U.S. at 484. SO ORDERED. February iB, 2025. WfacaenT horace — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE