UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

ROHN M. WEATHERLY, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:24-CV-13

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-ID, §

§

Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Rohn M. Weatherly, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable

Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant

to applicable laws and orders of the court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the petition be denied.

The court has received the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,

along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Petitioner filed objections to the

Report and Recommendation. 

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and

the applicable law. After careful consideration, the court is of the opinion the objections are

without merit. Petitioner challenged the failure to consider him for release on parole after one of

his convictions was vacated. The magistrate judge correctly concluded that as a Texas prisoner

has no liberty interest in being released on parole, petitioner’s complaints regarding the failure to

consider him for release on parole do not provide him with a basis for relief. Johnson v.

Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir. 1997). Petitioner’s objections are therefore without merit.

Case 9:24-cv-00013-MAC-ZJH Document 11 Filed 06/14/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 45
ORDER

Accordingly, the objections filed by petitioner (#10) are OVERRULED. The findings of

fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate

judge (#8) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered denying the petition.

In addition, the court is of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of

appealability. An appeal from a final judgment denying habeas relief may not proceed unless a 

certificate of appealability is issued. 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 is not required to

establish that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues raised

in the petition 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.

2000).

In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether this petition is

meritorious is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions raised

by petitioner have been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented

are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability

shall not issue in this matter. 

2

Signed this date

Jun 14, 2024

Case 9:24-cv-00013-MAC-ZJH Document 11 Filed 06/14/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 46