Opinion

Nelson v. Brown

Court
District Court, N.D. Texas
Filed
Aug 25, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 39.0%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL BRANDON-ELZIE NELSON, §

#24018550, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:25-cv-452-K-BN

§

MARIAN BROWN, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed

the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none,

the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge.

To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required,1 considering the

1 See Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[In Ojo v. I.N.S.,

106 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 1997), w]e concluded that a COA was not required in the § 2241

proceeding at issue there, because § 2253 clearly does not encompass challenges to

federal detention under § 2241. Just as clearly, however, § 2253 does encompass

challenges to state detention under § 2241, since “the detention complained of arises

out of process issued by a State court.” We hold that, assuming Stringer is a pretrial

detainee, he must obtain a COA.”).

1

record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule

11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),

the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by

reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation filed in

this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show that reasonable

jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its

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

But, if Petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, Petitioner must either pay the

appellate filing fee or move for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

SO ORDERED.

Signed August 25", 2025.

EDKINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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.