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

NORTHERN S RICT COURR IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT pr gt OF TEXag FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ILED AMARILLO DIVISION DEC 9 2019 DARRELL LYNN HOLLEMAN, § CLERK Ug Ie Py pf SINCE □□□□ Petitioner, § Deputy § § 2:19-CV-144-Z § LORIE DAVIS, Director, § Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division, § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS On July 16, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 3). On October 29, the United States Magistrate Judge entered findings and conclusions on this petition (ECF 12). The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED. No objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation have been filed. 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 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 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, he may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3). SO ORDERED. December 7 2019. TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE