Robinson v. Smith, No. 3:2019cv02593 - Document 73 (N.D. Tex. 2022)

Court Description: Order Accepting 68 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (doc. 3 ) is DENIED. The Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 57 ) should be DENIED. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 12/27/2022) (axm)

Download PDF
Robinson v. Smith Doc. 73 Case 3:19-cv-02593-C-BH Document 73 Filed 12/27/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 2140 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ROYAL DOUGLAS ROBINSON, tD # 02066342, Petitioner' vs, JIMMY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:19-CV-2593-C-BH S, SMITH, Senior Warden, DIRECTOR, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, ) Respondents. ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDING S AND RECOMMEND ATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGI S TRATE JUDGE ANI) DENYING C ERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY After reviewing all relevant matters ofrecord in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections theretol, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. $ 636(bX1), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions ofthe 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 ofthe United States Magistrate Judge, lhe Petilion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Cuslody, received on November 1, 2019 (doc. 3), is DENIED with prejudice. The Motion for Summary Judgment, received on March 31,2022 (doc. 57), should be DENIED. 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 incorporales by reference the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation in support of its finding that the petitioner I On December 16,2022, the Plaintifffiled Objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation filed on November 28, 2022 [Doc 68]. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:19-cv-02593-C-BH Document 73 Filed 12/27/22 has failed to show (1) that Page 2 of 2 PageID 2141 find this Court's "assessment of reasonable jurists would constitutional claims debatable or wrong," or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it the 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." S/ac,t v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 473' 484 (2000).2 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 pro ceed informa pauperis lhatis accompanied by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account. r/, '1o " day of December, 2022. SIGNED this "( / ./ CU SE OR v'z''za v/u GS TED STATES DIST CT JUDGE ( 2 Rule I I ofthe Rules Goveming Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as amended effeclive on December 1,2019, reads as follows: (a) Certilicate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate ofappealability 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 cenificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisry the showing required by 28 u.s.c. $ 2253(c)(2). Ifthe court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a cinificate from the court ofappeals under Federal Rule ofAppellate 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) govems the time to appeal an order iniered urd"r ihise 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.