Jones v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CHRISTOPHER DALE JONES, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Vv. ) ) DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, ) ) Respondent. ) Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-3516-C-BN ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus should be dismissed with prejudice as untimely. ' The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). After due consideration and having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that Petitioner’s objections should be OVERRULED. The Court has further conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, the

' Petitioner has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation.

Court ORDERS that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely. Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), this Court finds that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to show that a reasonable jurist would find: (1) this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) “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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). SO ORDERED. Dated August fs 2022. sewall } wih eee” \ □□ te 7 “SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE