Jones v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID

Opinion

US. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS amen AMARILLO DIVISION | DEC | 2 2019

CHRISTOPHER DONATE JONES, § CLERY, U.S. DISTRICT COURT a/k/a Christopher Dontae Jones, § St me i § Devaty el Petitioner, § § v. § 2:19-CV-178-Z § LORIE DAVIS, Director, § Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division, § § Respondent. § ORDER On September 18, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge entered findings and conclusions on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 6. The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED. On October 7, 2019, Petitioner filed objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation and requested an extension of time. ECF No. 7. An extension of time was given, but Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order to pay the filing fee (ECF No. 4). After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED, and the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. 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 Title 28, United States Code section 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, 483 (2000). 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.” Jd. at 484. If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, Petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3). (X) Petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. SO ORDERED. December |23019,

ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE