District Court, N.D. Texas, 2023

Malachowski v. Rivers

Malachowski v. Rivers
District Court, N.D. Texas · Decided May 23, 2023
Malachowski v. Rivers

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MARCEL MALACHOWSKI, ) ID # 15287-052, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Vv. ) ) NFN RIVERS, ) ) Respondent. ) Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1156-C-BT ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Petitioner’s Petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be DISMISSED. Petitioner filed his objections on May 15 2023. Said objections are OVERRULED.

The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), The Court has conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

For the reasons stated therein, Petioner’s Petition in the above-styled and -numbered civil action is DISMISSED.

Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), this Court finds that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show that a reasonable jurist 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

SO ORDERED. ,; ae Dated this 22 _ day of May, 2023. f | 7 | BQeEE ayy / nf pr?

SAM R.C INGS OR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.