Arredondo v. Director, TDCJ-CID

District Court, N.D. Texas

Arredondo v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Trial Court Opinion

US. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | *~°""! DRI □□ FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION [ saw 20 □□□ □ JEREMY JUSTIN ARREDONDO, § DISTRICT Ta Petitioner, : v. 2:19-CV-191-Z-BR DIRECTOR, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division, § Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge to dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 3) filed by Petitioner in this case. 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, the Court concludes the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct. The Court ADOPTS the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and DISMISSES the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 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 failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 US. 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 findings, conclusions, and

recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find: (1) this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong” or (2) “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. January 20122. Laas — MA HEW J. KACSMARYK TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown