Robinson v. Thaler, No. 4:2011cv00489 - Document 12 (N.D. Tex. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS and ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Re: 11 Findings and Recommendations 8 Motion to Dismiss filed by Rick Thaler. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magi strate judge are adopted. Edwin Lee Robinson's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, except as to any application of the federal statute of limitations or other federal procedural bar tha may apply. Certificate of appealability should not issue. (See order for specifics) (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 10/28/2011) (ewd)

Download PDF

Robinson v. Thaler Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION EDWIN LEE ROBINSON, Petitioner, VS. RICK THALER, Director, T.D.C.J., Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-489-Y ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS and ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 of petitioner Edwin Lee Robinson, along with the September 23, 2011, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge. The magistrate judge gave the parties until October 13 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. Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED. Edwin Lee Robinson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, except as to any Dockets.Justia.com application of the federal statute of limitations or other federal procedural bar that may apply.1 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. § 2253.2 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 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.”3 The COA may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”4 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.”5 Upon review and consideration of the record in the abovereferenced case as to whether petitioner Robinson has made a showing that reasonable jurists would question this Court’s rulings, the Court determines he has not and that a certificate of 1 A one-year statute of limitations is now applicable to the filing of noncapital § 2254 habeas corpus petitions in federal court. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1-4)(West 2006). The statute of limitations is tolled, however, while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(2)(West 2006). 2 See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 3 RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, RULE 11(a) (December 1, 2009). 4 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006). 5 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003), citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 2 appealability should not issue for the reasons stated in the September 23, 2011, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.6 Therefore, a certificate of appealability should not issue. SIGNED October 28, 2011. ____________________________ TERRY R. MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); see also 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006). 3

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.