Eddins v. USA, No. 3:2016cv01910 - Document 32 (N.D. Tex. 2021)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 31 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 2 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 12/3/2021) (mjr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Eddins v. USA Doc. 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION THOMAS EDDINS, ID # 39806-177, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-01910-L-BH (Criminal No. 3:10-cr-00105-L-1) ORDER The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 31) was entered on November 10, 2021. The Report recommends that the court deny Petitioner Thomas Eddins’s (“Petitioner”) Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (“Motion”) (Doc. 2) and dismiss with prejudice this habeas action in which he has asserted a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. No objections to the Report were filed as of the date of this order, and the time to do so has passed. Having considered Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 2), the record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 2) and dismisses with prejudice this action. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com the court denies a certificate of appealability.* The court determines that 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). In support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. It is so ordered this 3rd day of December, 2021. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge * Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides as follows: (a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal. (b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a certificate of appealability. Order – Page 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.
