Shaw v. Director, TDCJ-CID ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | Sot aR □□ FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS i -ED AMARILLO DIVISION 30 □□ □ MARK ANDREW SHAW, § aI, Petitioner, oo v. 2:19-CV-171-Z-BR DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent. ORDER On November 4, 2021, the United States Magistrate Judge entered a Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“FCR”) to deny the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mark Andrew Shaw (“Petitioner”) (ECF No. 23). No objections to the FCR have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court ORDERS that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge should be and is hereby ADOPTED. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 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 the petitioner has failed to make ‘“‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 424 (Sth Cir. 2011). The Court ADOPTS and INCORPORATES by reference the Magistrate Judge’s FCR filed in this case in support of its finding that the 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.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. SO ORDERED. December 30 2021. MAYTHEW J. KACSMARYK TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE