Brown v. Jenkins, No. 4:2013cv00709 - Document 16 (N.D. Tex. 2013)

Court Description: Order Adopting 14 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability: Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED. Upon review and consideration of the record in the above-refere nced case as to whether petitioner Brown 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 8, 2013, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. (See order for specifics.) (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 11/26/2013) (mdf)

Download PDF
Brown v. Jenkins Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION MIKELL LAMAR BROWN VS. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, T.D.C.J. Correctional Institutions Div. § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:13-CV-709-O ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY In this action brought by petitioner Mikell Lamar Brown under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court has made an independent review of the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause: 1. The pleadings and record; 2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on November 8, 2013; and 3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on November 22, 2013. The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Petitioner’s objections must be overruled, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be denied for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED. Mikell Lamar Brown’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. 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 above-referenced case as to whether petitioner Brown 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 8, 2013, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.5 Therefore, a certificate of appealability should not issue. Signed this 26th day of November, 2013. _____________________________________ Reed O’Connor 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 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.