Adger v. Director, TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2019cv01772 - Document 30 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: Order Accepting 28 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 5/23/2022) (jmg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Adger v. Director, TDCJ-CID Doc. 30 Case 3:19-cv-01772-M-BH Document 30 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 2891 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PATRICK ADGER, ID # 2048709, Petitioner, ) ) ) vs. ) ) DIRECTOR, Texas Department of Criminal ) Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, ) Respondent. ) No. 3:19-CV-1772-M-BH ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY After reviewing the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and conducting a de novo review of those parts of the Findings and Conclusions to which objections have been made, I am 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. By separate judgment, the the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, received on August 13, 2019 (doc. 6), will be DENIED with prejudice. 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:19-cv-01772-M-BH Document 30 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2892 whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1 In the event that 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 that is accompanied by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account. SIGNED this 23rd day of May, 2022. 1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as amended effective on December 1, 2019, reads 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.
]]>
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.
