# Palmer v. Brown

> District Court, N.D. Texas · February 13, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10452368

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Texas
- **Decided:** February 13, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10452368

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10452368. Public record. Not legal advice.