Opinion

Palmer v. Brown

Court
District Court, N.D. Texas
Filed
Feb 13, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 29.9%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

HAXANS WALDELL PALMER, )

ID # 238641, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

MARIAN BROWN, ET AL., )

)

Respondents. ) Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-86-C-BT

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Petitioner’s petition should be

DISMISSED as barred by limitations and deny the motion for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner

filed objections on January 31, 2023. Said objections are OVERRULED.

The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report or

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the

subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or

contrary to law. See United States y. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989).

The Court has conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

conclusions and finds no error. 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 petition in the above-styled and -numbered civil action is

DISMISSED as time barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and the motion for evidentiary

hearing is denied.

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. Specifically, 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 procedural

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

SO ORDERED. ,

df

Dated this 3 day of February, 2023. a

7 nif ] AYA greg),

/ } uf . / i

SAM/R. CUMMINGS / |

NIOR UNITED STATES ,DIYTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.