The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
KEPHREN THOMAS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
Vv. )
)
MARIAN BROWN, Dallas County Sheriff, )
)
Respondent. ) Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-1258-C-BN
ORDER
Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge therein advising that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for preliminary
injunctive relief and dismiss the pending habeas action, construed as being brought under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to pursue available state court remedies. |
The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error
and finds none. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated
therein, Petitioner’s request for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED and Petitioner’s habeas
petition, construed as being brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is DISMISSED without prejudice.
All relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED.’
' Petitioner has failed to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation and the time to do so has now expired.
> The Court notes that Petitioner has filed several frivolous motions, rather than file objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. Furthermore, and to the extent
Petitioner sought that the Court provide him with copies of legal filings, the Court would advise that it
maintains no such duty. In addition, even if Petitioner had filed timely objections, the outcome would
not have changed as Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies.
Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),
this Court finds that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Court adopts and incorporates
by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation in support of its
finding that Petitioner has failed to show that a reasonable jurist would find: (1) this Court’s
“assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) “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 Rae Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
SO ORDERED this AA _ day of June, 2020.
[y f A pat ly
| /
\ d hi /
“SAM/R. CUMMINGS [
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE