Brandon v. TDCJ Director, No. 4:2011cv00466 - Document 12 (N.D. Tex. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 11 Findings and Recommendations on Case. The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this case, and has reviewed for clear error the findings, conclusions, and recommendation. The Court conc ludes that, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice as barred by limitations. A certificate of appealability should not issue. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 12/16/2011) (uls)

Download PDF
Brandon v. TDCJ Director Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION DOUGLAS MARTIN BRANDON, VS. RICK THALER, Director, T.D.C.J. Correctional Institutions Div. § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:11-CV-466-Y ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 of petitioner Douglas Martin Brandon, along with the November 18, 2011, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge. The magistrate judge gave the parties until December 9, 2011, to file written objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation. As of the date of this order, no written objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this case, and has reviewed for clear error the findings, conclusions and recommendation. The Court concludes that, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice as barred by limitations. Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED. Petitioner Douglas Martin Brandon’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Certificate of Appealability Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an appeal may not proceed unless a certificate of appealability (COA) is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 1 See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). Dockets.Justia.com Section 2254 Proceedings now requires that the Court “must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”2 The COA may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”3 A petitioner satisfies this standard by showing “that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists of reason could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”4 Upon review and consideration of the record in the abovereferenced case as to whether petitioner Brandon has made a showing that reasonable jurists would question this Court’s rulings, the Court determines he has not and that a certificate of appealability should not issue for the reasons stated in the November 18, 2011, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.5 Therefore, a certificate of appealability should not issue. SIGNED December 16, 2011. ____________________________ TERRY R. MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, RULE 11(a) (December 1, 2009). 3 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006). 4 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003), citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 5 See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); see also 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006). 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.