Agu v. Hussey et al, No. 3:2017cv03487 - Document 15 (N.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation re: 13 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Michael Agu. If the 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. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 11/19/2018) (ndt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Agu v. Hussey et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICHAEL AGU, ID # A073711867, ) ) Petitioner, ) vs. ) ) THOMAS W. HUSSEY, U.S. ) DHS & BICE Director of Immigrant ) Litigation, et al., ) ) Respondent. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-3487-G (BH) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the findings and conclusions of the court. For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED as moot. A certificate of appealability (COA) is not required for a federal inmate to appeal the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005). Dockets.Justia.com If the 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. SO ORDERED. November 19, 2018. ___________________________________ A. JOE FISH Senior 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.
