Mcgee v. Director, TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2020cv01415 - Document 70 (N.D. Tex. 2023)

Court Description: Order Accepting 66 Findings and Recommendations of The United States Magistrate Judge. The Court DENIES McGee's 61 Rule 60(b) motion; 60 Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing; 62 Motion to Appoint Counsel; 63 Motion for Extension of Time; and 65 Motion for a Stay in the Proceedings. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 2/21/2023) (sxf)

Download PDF
Mcgee v. Director, TDCJ-CID Doc. 70 Case 3:20-cv-01415-X-BN Document 70 Filed 02/21/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 2988 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RICKEY L. MCGEE, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § No. 3:20-CV-1415-X-BN ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 66]. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge denied McGee’s motion for relief from the Court’s February 28, 2022 judgment [Doc. No. 61], motion for an evidentiary hearing [Doc. No. 60], motion for court-appointed counsel [Doc. No. 62], motion to extend the time limit to file any responsive briefs [Doc. No. 63], and motion to stay the proceedings [Doc. No. 65]. McGee raises two objections. First, he asserts that he “did exhaust [his] claims.”1 But the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation didn’t hinge on McGee’s failure to exhaust. In fact, the Magistrate Judge denied McGee’s “motion to stay the proceedings to allow him to 1 Doc. No. 68 at 1. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-01415-X-BN Document 70 Filed 02/21/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2989 exhaust state remedies” because “[t]here are no ongoing proceedings to ‘stay.’”2 Second, he claims the prosecutor in his case made “inflammatory closing arguments” and that the Court has never reviewed the state court’s denial of that claim on the merits.3 Similarly, he contends that his “counsel was ineffective” in his initial collateral proceeding.4 But McGee doesn’t provide any detail beyond those conclusory statements. Accordingly, he hasn’t met his burden of “showing [] unusual or unique circumstances justifying” the “extraordinary relief afforded by Rule 60(b).”5 The Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Court, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES McGee’s Rule 60(b) motion [Doc. No. 61], his Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing [Doc. No. 60]; his Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No. 62]; his Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 63]; and his Motion for a Stay in the Proceedings [Doc. No. 65]. 2 Doc. No. 66 at 12. 3 Doc. No. 68 at 1. 4 Id. at 3. 5 Wallace v. Magnolia Family Servs., L.L.C., No. 13-4703, 2015 WL 61321604, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 24, 2015). 2 Case 3:20-cv-01415-X-BN Document 70 Filed 02/21/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 2990 IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of February, 2023. ____________________________________ BRANTLEY STARR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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.