From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Thaler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION
Oct 30, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO.4:12-CV-306-Y (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.4:12-CV-306-Y

10-30-2012

MONTERIO DESHA HILL, v. RICK THALER, Director, T.D.C.J., Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 of petitioner Monterio Desha Hill, along with the October 1, 2012, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge. The magistrate judge gave the parties until October 21, 2012, to file written objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation. As of the date of this order, no written objections have been filed.

The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this case, and has reviewed for clear error the findings, conclusions and recommendation. The Court concludes that, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be denied.

Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.

Petitioner Monterio Desha Hill's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED.

Certificate of Appealability

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an appeal may not proceed unless a certificate of appealability (COA) is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings now requires that the Court "must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." The COA may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." A petitioner satisfies this standard by showing "that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists of reason could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."

RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, RULE 11(a) (December 1, 2009).

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003)(citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

Upon review and consideration of the record in the abovereferenced case as to whether petitioner Hill has made a showing that reasonable jurists would question this Court's rulings, the Court determines he has not and that a certificate of appealability should not issue for the reasons stated in the October 1, 2012, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); see also 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006).
--------

Therefore, a certificate of appealability should not issue.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hill v. Thaler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION
Oct 30, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO.4:12-CV-306-Y (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2012)
Case details for

Hill v. Thaler

Case Details

Full title:MONTERIO DESHA HILL, v. RICK THALER, Director, T.D.C.J., Correctional…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

Date published: Oct 30, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO.4:12-CV-306-Y (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2012)