IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT CHARLES CASEY,

Petitioner,

vs. No. 3:22-CV-1396-C-BH

DIRECTOR, Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATE S MAGISTRA TE JUDGE AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

After reviewing all relevant matters ofrecord in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United Stales Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. $ 636(bX1), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and conclusions ofthe Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of

the Court. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge, the Petition Under 28 IIS.C $ 2251 for ll'rit of Habeas Corpus by a

person in state custody, received on June 28, 2022 (doc,3), will be DISMISSED by separate

judgement for lack ofjurisdiction, and any civil claims will be DISMISSED without prejudice to

seeking relief in a separate civil action'

In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. $ 2253(c) and after considering

the record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the petitioner is DENIED

a Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate

Judge,s Findings, conclusions, and Recommendation 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 v"rong," or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case 3:22-cv-01396-C-BH Document 6 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 52
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." S/ac& v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 473,484

(2000). 

'

In the event that the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate

filing fee or submit a motion to proceed informa pauperis.

SIGNED *i" tdau1of September, 2022.

z ???,

R.C INGS

S IOR STA ISTRICT JUDGE

I Rule I I ofthe Rules Goveming Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as amended effective

on December l, 2019, reads as follows:

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district courl 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 satisry the showing required by 28

U.S.C. $ 2253(cX2). lfthe court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may

seek a certificate fiom the court ofappeals under Federal Rule ofAppellate 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) govems the time to apPeal an order

entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the districl court issues a

certifi cate of appealabilitY.

t

Case 3:22-cv-01396-C-BH Document 6 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 53