Nkanga v. Davis, Director TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2015cv00451 - Document 23 (N.D. Tex. 2017)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 22 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Eno Effiong Nkanga. For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge the petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED with prejudice. If the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 3/20/2017) (ndt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Nkanga v. Davis, Director TDCJ-CID Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ENO EFFIONG NKANGA, ID # 1372194, Petitioner, VS. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-0451-G (BH) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the findings and conclusions of the court. For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Dockets.Justia.com Judge, the petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED with prejudice. In accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the magistrate judge, petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. The court adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions and recommendation 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). If the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account. SO ORDERED. March 20, 2017. ___________________________________ A. JOE FISH Senior United States District Judge -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
