Sevier v. Grant, No. 3:2021cv02899 - Document 19 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 18 Findings and Recommendations on Case. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 4/18/2022) (chmb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sevier v. Grant Doc. 19 Case 3:21-cv-02899-L-BH Document 19 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 74 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION § § § § § § § § § CHRISTOPHER SEVIER, Petitioner, v. S. GRANT, WARDEN, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-2899-L-BH ORDER On March 28, 2022, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18) (“Report”) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice this habeas action, pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. No objections to the Report were filed, and the deadline for asserting objections has expired. Having considered the file, Report, and record in this case, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court dismisses without prejudice this action pursuant to Rule 41(b). Further, 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 determines that Petitioner has * Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides 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 Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:21-cv-02899-L-BH Document 19 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 75 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 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). In support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report filed in this case. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. It is so ordered this 18th day of April, 2022. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge 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. Order – Page 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.
