Munoz v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID, No. 2:2018cv00199 - Document 13 (N.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 8 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 12/21/2018) (vls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Munoz v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION ARNOLD MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § § 2:18-CV-199-D ORDER Petitioner’s December 13, 2018 motion to include additional information is granted. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the November 27, 2018 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, petitioner’s December 12, 2018 objections, and petitioner’s December 13, 2018 motion to include additional information, 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 habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied. Considering the record in this case, the court denies a certificate of appealability insofar as a certificate of appealability is needed. 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 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 Dockets.Justia.com U.S.473, 484 (2000). If petitioner files a notice of appeal, ( ) petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (X) petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. December 21, 2018. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER SENIOR 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.
