Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-86-C-BT
02-13-2023
HAXANS WALDELL PALMER, ID # 238641, Petitioner, v. MARIAN BROWN, ET AL., Respondents.
ORDER
SAM R. CUMMINGS SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 fdcd 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 v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th 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 bindings, 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