1 The previously-named respondent in this action was Nathaniel

Quarterman. On July 15, 2009, Rick Thaler succeeded Nathaniel Quarterman as

Director of the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice. Under Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he is

“automatically” substituted as a party.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LAWRENCE GENE PAGE, )

 )

Petitioner, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

 )

V. ) 3:03-CV-2741-G

 )

RICK THALER, Director, Texas ) CONSOLIDATED WITH

Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, ) 3:03-CV-2743-G

 )

Respondent.1 )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

 

 Case 3:03-cv-02741-G Document 33 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 3 PageID 292
- 2 -

United States Magistrate Judge, and DISMISSES for want of jurisdiction petitioner’s

motions for leave to file a successive habeas corpus petition (Doc. #31 in No. 3:03-

CV-2741-G, and Doc. # 14 in No. 3:03-CV-2743-G). Such a dismissal is without

prejudice to petitioner’s right to file a motion for leave to file a second or successive

§ 2254 petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

It is ORDERED that the clerk will OPEN for administrative purposes a new

habeas corpus action (nature of suit 530 directly assigned to the same district judge

and magistrate judge) and will CLOSE the same on the basis of this order.

It is further ORDERED, considering the record in this case and pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing

§§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), that a certificate of

appealability is DENIED. 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 states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this

 

 Case 3:03-cv-02741-G Document 33 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 3 PageID 293
2 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, 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. 

- 3 -

Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000).2

March 22, 2010.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:03-cv-02741-G Document 33 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 3 PageID 294