House v. USA, No. 3:2021cv01485 - Document 11 (N.D. Tex. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 10 Findings and Recommendations on Case. (Ordered by Chief District Judge David C Godbey on 12/2/2022) (sxf)

Download PDF
House v. USA Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DERRICK HOUSE, #57719-177 Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. § § § § § § § § No. 3:21-cv-01485-N-BT ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated November 2, 2022, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Court. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are accepted. 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 the Movant 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 [motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional Dockets.Justia.com right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). If Movant files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2022. ___________________________ DAVID C. GODBEY CHIEF 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.