You're viewing Docket Item 7 from the case Gilbert v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 3:13-cv-02397-N-BK Document 7 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION


§
CHEECKO GILBERT, #1502445,
§

§


§
v.

§
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Direct TDCJ-CID §

§



Petitioner,




Respondent.
























3:13-CV-2397-N-BK

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution.



Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Sections 2254 and 2255 Proceedings in the United

States District Court, 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 the petitioner has failed to

show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition

Case 3:13-cv-02397-N-BK Document 7 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 12

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).1

If petitioner files a notice of appeal,

( )

petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

(X)

petitioner must pay the $455.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed

in forma pauperis.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2013.























________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE












                                                            
1  Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Proceedings, as amended effective on December 1,
2009, reads as follows:

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the
final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate
should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or
issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a
certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court
of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial
does not extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal
an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the
district court issues a certificate of appealability.