Redmond v. Director, TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2020cv01414 - Document 19 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 18 Findings and Recommendations on Case. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 12/16/2022) (sxf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Redmond v. Director, TDCJ-CID Doc. 19 Case 3:20-cv-01414-G-BT Document 19 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 242 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PRESTON REDMOND, Petitioner, VS. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-1414-G-BT ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The court has taken under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford dated October 20, 2022. The court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error and has found none. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are accepted. Moreover, considering the record in this case, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show that (1) “reasonable jurists would find [this Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-01414-G-BT Document 19 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 243 court’s] assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong” or (2) 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). SO ORDERED. December 16, 2022. ___________________________________ 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.
