Horsley v. Stephens Director TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2014cv02898 - Document 12 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 11 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 11/25/2014) (skt)

Download PDF
Horsley v. Stephens Director TDCJ-CID Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION WILLIS ROYCE HORSLEY, Jr., ID #1477904, Petitioner, vs. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:14-CV-2898-D Texas Department of Criminal ORDER After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted. 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, the 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). Dockets.Justia.com If 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. SIGNED November 25, 2014. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER 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.