Daniels v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID, No. 2:2018cv00090 - Document 9 (N.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations 6 and granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Findings and Recommendations on case 7 . (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 6/13/2018) (dxs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Daniels v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION RAYMOND JOHN DANIELS, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § § 2:18-CV-090-D ORDER Petitioner’s June 11, 2018 motion for extension of time to file objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge is granted, and his objections filed on June 11, 2018 are deemed timely filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the May l4, 2018 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and petitioner’s June 11, 2018 objections, the court concludes the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s objections are overruled, the recommendation of the magistrate judge is adopted, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability. 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 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 petitioner files a notice of appeal, (X) petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. ( ) petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. June 13, 2018. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 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.
