Santos v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID, No. 4:2009cv00356 - Document 16 (N.D. Tex. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge. The court ORDERS that the application be, and is hereby, denied. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 12/29/2009) (cxb) Modified on 12/29/2009/Dist 12/29 (cxb).

Download PDF
Santos v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID Doc. 16 U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR CT CO';~~ FIL=E=JD~~ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF EXAS FORT WORTH DIVISIO DEC 2 92009 CESAR CELESTINO SANTOS, Applicant, VS. RICK THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. o § § § § § § § § § § § § CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT By _ _ _ -::-~ Dellut~· NO. 4:09-CV-356-A R D E R Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein Cesar Celestino Santos ("Santos") is applicant l and Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, is respondent. This is an application for writ of habeas corpus filed by applicant on June 18, 2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 11, 2009, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings and conclusions and recommendation ("FC&R"), and ordered that the parties file objections, if any, thereto by December 1, 2009. Copies of the proposed FC&R were sent to applicant and respondent. Because timely objections have not been filed, the court adopts the magistrate judge's proposed findings and IThe title of the document filed by Santos was "Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody," and Santos referred to himself as "petitioner" in the document. Consistent with the wording of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court is referring to the document filed as an "application" and is referring to Santos as "applicant." Dockets.Justia.com conclusions and accepts the magistrate judge's recommendation. Therefore, The court ORDERS that the application be, and is hereby, denied. SIGNED December 29, 2009. 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.