Mason v. State of Texas, No. 3:2023cv01636 - Document 18 (N.D. Tex. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 17 Findings and Recommendations on Case and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/26/2024) (sxf)

Download PDF
Mason v. State of Texas Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DEONDRAY RAYMOND MASON, #02198087, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF TEXAS, RESPONDENT. § § § § § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:23-CV-1636-D § § § ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the court adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Sections 2254 and 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Court, 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 the petitioner 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 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). If the petitioner files a notice of appeal, petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. must pay the $605.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. March 26, 2024. ____________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER SENIOR 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.