Menefield v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID ( 2019 )

NO, RICT RTHERN Disp ICT Ob □□ vos IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT GOURT F ILED FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF [TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION DEC 5 2019 CLERK, U.§ 2 US. DIST RANDELL ALLEN MENEFIELD, § By RICT Court § Deputy Petitioner, § § Vv. § 2:19-CV-137-Z § LORIE DAVIS, Director, § Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division, § § Respondent. § ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION, AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS On October 11, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge entered findings and conclusions on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in this case. The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED. On October 29, 2019, Petitioner filed objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation. 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, that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED, and that 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 28 U.S.C. § 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 US. 473, 483 (2000); see also Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 428 (Sth Cir. 2011). 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.” Hernandez, 630 F.3d at 484. If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3). SO ORDERED. December 5. 2019. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE