From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Loften v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Aug 30, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-323 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-323

08-30-2018

JAMES ERIC LOFTEN, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, James Eric Loften, an inmate confined at the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court finds petitioner's objections are without merit.

ORDER

Accordingly, the objections of petitioner are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A Final Judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.

In addition, the court is of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying post-conviction collateral relief may not proceed unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner need not establish that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000).

In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason or worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter.

Signed this date

Aug 30, 2018

/s/_________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Loften v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Aug 30, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-323 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2018)
Case details for

Loften v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

Case Details

Full title:JAMES ERIC LOFTEN, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Date published: Aug 30, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-323 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2018)