Johnny Edmondson v. Director, TDCJ

E.D. Texas

Johnny Edmondson v. Director, TDCJ

DecidedDecember 15, 2025

Docket6:23-cv-00521

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnny Edmondson v. Director, TDCJ (Johnny Edmondson v. Director, TDCJ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnny Edmondson v. Director, TDCJ, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00521 Johnny Edmondson, Petitioner, v. Director, TDCJ, Respondent.

ORDER Petitioner, a prisoner confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed this pro se habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge (Doc. 3) who issued a report recommending that the court deny peti- tioner’s habeas petition, dismiss the case with prejudice, and deny petitioner a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Doc. 6 at 5. The court mailed the report to petitioner at his last known address on April 7, 2025. However, Petitioner has not filed objections or oth- erwise communicated with the court since the filing of his peti- tion. Proof of mailing “creates a presumption that it reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the per- son to whom it was addressed.” See Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 931 F.3d 412, 420 (5th Cir. 2019). When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satis- fied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s find- ings and recommendations. Petitioner’s habeas petition is denied, the case is dismissed with prejudice, and petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

-l-

So ordered by the court on December 15, 2025.

ji CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00521 Johnny Edmondson, Petitioner, v. Director, TDCJ, Respondent.

ORDER Petitioner, a prisoner confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed this pro se habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge (Doc. 3) who issued a report recommending that the court deny peti- tioner’s habeas petition, dismiss the case with prejudice, and deny petitioner a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Doc. 6 at 5. The court mailed the report to petitioner at his last known address on April 7, 2025. However, Petitioner has not filed objections or oth- erwise communicated with the court since the filing of his peti- tion. Proof of mailing “creates a presumption that it reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the per- son to whom it was addressed.” See Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 931 F.3d 412, 420 (5th Cir. 2019). When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satis- fied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s find- ings and recommendations. Petitioner’s habeas petition is denied, the case is dismissed with prejudice, and petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

-l-

So ordered by the court on December 15, 2025.

ji CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnny Edmondson v. Director, TDCJ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnny-edmondson-v-director-tdcj-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack