Mims v. Director

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: September 9, 2025
• Docket: 5:22-cv-00058
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

BOBBY RAY MIMS, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-58-RWS-JBB § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § § Respondent. §

ORDER Petitioner Bobby Ray Mims, a prisoner confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 24), recommending the above-styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus be denied. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Report on August 29, 2025. Docket No. 25. To date, no objections have been filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). The Court also concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). The standard for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000); see also Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner need not establish that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529

U.S. at 483–84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280–81 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000). In this case, Petitioner has not shown that any of the issues would be subject to debate among jurists of reason, and the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has, therefore, failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not be issued. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 24) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED sua sponte. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of September, 2025.

[Doher t LU Lbrpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3