Palmer v. Brown et al, No. 3:2022cv00086 - Document 39 (N.D. Tex. 2023)

Court Description: Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 35 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 2/13/2023) (ykp)

Download PDF
Palmer v. Brown et al Doc. 39 Case 3:22-cv-00086-C-BT Document 39 Filed 02/13/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1278 IN THE L,]NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION HAXANS WALDELL PALMER, \D # 238641, Petitioncr. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MARIAN BROWN, ET AL., Respondents. ) ) ) Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-86-C-BT ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Petitioner's petition should be DISMISSED as baned by limitations and deny the motion for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner filed objections on January 31,2023. Said objections are OVERRULED. The Court conducts a de novo rcview ofthose portions ofthe Magistrate Judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made' 28 U.S.C. $ 636(bXlXC). Portions ofthe report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly elroneous or contrary to law. See (Jnited Stdtes v. llilson,864 F.2d 1219,1221 (5th Cir. 1989). The Court has conducted an independent review ofthe Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADoPTED as the findings and conclusions of the court. For the reasons stated therein, Petitioner's petition in the above-styled and -numbered civil action is Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:22-cv-00086-C-BT Document 39 Filed 02/13/23 DISMISSED Page 2 of 2 PageID 1279 as time barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2244(d) and the motion for evidentiary hearing is denied. Pursuant to Rule 22 ofthe Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. $ 2253(c), this Cou( finds that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to show that a reasonable jurist would find: (l) this Court's "assessment ofthe constitutional claims debalable or wrong," or (2) "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial ola constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling." .S/acft v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 473,484 (2000). SO ORD ERED., Dated thi , 6/' day of February, 2023. ,444 I C S OR GS STATES ( 2 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.