Bailey v. State of Texas, No. 3:2015cv02906 - Document 10 (N.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations re: 7 Findings and Recommendations on Case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the successive petition for writ of habeas corpus is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 11/16/2015) (mem)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bailey v. State of Texas Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION J. C. BAILEY, #1779501-567776, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director TDCJ-CID, Respondent. § § § § § § § § 3:15-CV-2906-B-BK ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in this case. Petitioner filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the successive petition for writ of habeas corpus is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 On October 22, 2015, Petitioner filed a notice of interlocutory appeal purporting to appeal from the the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, which is nonappealable. Doc. 9. Despite the interlocutory appeal, the Court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. See United States v. Green, 882 F.2d 999, 1001 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding notice of appeal from a nonappealable order does not divest the district court of jurisdiction); United States v. Hitchmon, 602 F.2d 689, 693 (5th Cir. 1979) (noting the contrary rule “leaves the court powerless to prevent intentional dilatory tactics, forecloses without remedy the nonappealing party’s right to continuing trial court jurisdiction, and inhibits the smooth and efficient functioning of the judicial process), superseded on other grounds as recognized in United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1308 n.11 (11th Cir. 1985). Dockets.Justia.com 2244(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1631.2 SO ORDERED this 16th day of November, 2015. _________________________________ JANE J. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 An order transferring a successive application to the court of appeals is not a final order requiring a certificate of appealability. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015); Brewer v. Stephens, 605 Fed. Appx. 417 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
]]>
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.
