Rodriguez v. Director, TDCJ-CID

N.D. Texas

Rodriguez v. Director, TDCJ-CID

DecidedDecember 7, 2023

Docket3:20-cv-00359

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Rodriguez v. Director, TDCJ-CID, (N.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

United States District Court NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, § TDCJ No. 2148738 § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-0359-S-BN DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are ACCEPTED as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Petitioner’s “Motion to Dismiss Constitutional Error” [ECF No. 34] is construed as a successive habeas corpus petition and transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Because an order transferring a successive application is not a final order, a certificate of appealability is not needed. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (Sth Cir. 2015); Brewer v. Stephens, 605 F. App’x 417, 417 (Sth Cir. 2015) (per curiam). SO ORDERED. SIGNED December 7, 2023.

2 Leah □□

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

United States District Court NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, § TDCJ No. 2148738 § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-0359-S-BN DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are ACCEPTED as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Petitioner’s “Motion to Dismiss Constitutional Error” [ECF No. 34] is construed as a successive habeas corpus petition and transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Because an order transferring a successive application is not a final order, a certificate of appealability is not needed. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (Sth Cir. 2015); Brewer v. Stephens, 605 F. App’x 417, 417 (Sth Cir. 2015) (per curiam). SO ORDERED. SIGNED December 7, 2023.

2 Leah □□

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rodriguez v. Director, TDCJ-CID, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-director-tdcj-cid-txnd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack