Daubitz v. Director, TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2021cv02417 - Document 7 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: Order Adopting 6 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Charles Reynold Daubitz, III. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 3/2/2022) (ndt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Daubitz v. Director, TDCJ-CID Doc. 7 Case 3:21-cv-02417-C-BK Document 7 Filed 03/02/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 67 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTzuCT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CHARLES REYNOLD DAUBITZ, III, ) ) Petitioner. ) ) ) ) DIRECTOR, TDCJ.CID, ) Respondent. ) ) Civil Action No. 3 :21 -CY -2417 -C-BK ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Petitioner's habeas petition should be summarily dismissed with prejudice as barred by the one-year statute of limitations.r The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error and finds none. are hereby It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. $ 2253(c), this Court finds that a certificate ofappealability is denied. For the reasons set forth in the United States Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, Movant has failed to show that a reasonable jurist would find: (l) this Court's "assessment ofthe constitutional claims debatable or wrong," or (2) "it debatable whether the petition states a valid rPetitioner has failed to file objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions. and Recommendation and the time to do so has now expired. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:21-cv-02417-C-BK Document 7 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 68 claim ofthe denial ofa constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling." S/ack v. Mc Dan ie l, 529 U.S. 47 3, 484 (2000). SO ORDERED. Dated March L 2022. ) C SENIOR 2 GS STA IS CT JUDGE
]]>
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.
