Conner v. Director, TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2020cv03174 - Document 22 (N.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: Order Accepting 11 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 4 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Christian Dior Conner. The court therefore DENIES Petitioner's motion for summary judgment as moot. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 11/16/2020) (ndt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Conner v. Director, TDCJ-CID Doc. 22 Case 3:20-cv-03174-G-BN Document 22 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID 164 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CHRISTIAN DIOR CONNER, TDCJ No. 2182539, Petitioner, VS. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-3174-G (BN) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. See docket entry 11. No objections were filed. The district court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. After entry of the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, the court granted Petitioner leave to amend his petition. See docket entries 15, 17, 18. The court therefore DENIES Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment (docket entry 4) as moot. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-03174-G-BN Document 22 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID 165 And, to the extent that a certificate of appealability is requested or necessary, considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), 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 reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).* * Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1, 2009, 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. -2- Case 3:20-cv-03174-G-BN Document 22 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID 166 SO ORDERED. November 16, 2020. ___________________________________ A. JOE FISH Senior 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.
