Beltran v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2019cv00205 - Document 18 (N.D. Tex. 2019)

Court Description: Order Adopting 16 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability 14 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Santos Martinez Beltran, 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Santos Martinez Beltran. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 10/9/2019) (ndt)

Download PDF
Beltran v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SANTOS MARTINEZ BELTRAN, Petitioner, ) vs, ) ) No.3:19-CV-205-C-BK ) ) ) ) ) LOll.l DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justicc Correctional I nstitutions Division, Respondent. RDEII. In the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation filed September 19,2019, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner's habeas corpus petition without prejudicc lbr failure to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner i-ailed to file a timely objection to the Irindings, Conclusions, and Recommendation After reviewing the well-reasoned Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error, the Courl tlnds that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are corect and adopts them as the findings and conclusions ofthe Court Accordingly, the petition filed under 28 U.S.C. $ 2254 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE lbr f'ailure to properly exhaust state court remedies. After considering the record in this case and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by refbrcnce the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation in support findings that the Petitioner has failed to show (l) olits that reasonable jurists would find this Court's "asscssment ol'thc constitutional claims debatable or urong" or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whelher tlrc pelition statcs a valid claim ofthe denial of a constitutional right" Dockets.Justia.com and "debatable whcther [this Court] was correct in its procedural 529 U.S. 473,484 Datcd this ruling." Slact v, McDaniel, (200\ -4-O^rof October,20l9. -?.1,'?'rn R. SENI ,1 GS UN STATES ( 2 'ri CT JUD(;8,

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.