Case Information
*1 Case 3:25-cv-00049-L-BW Document 21 Filed 07/02/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID 87
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ROBERT L. HARRIS, IV, §
§
Petitioner, §
§ v. § Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-49-L-BW
§
STATE OF TEXAS, §
§
Respondent. §
ORDER
On May 29, 2025, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 20) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice this habeas action for lack of jurisdiction as moot because Petitioner is no longer a pretrial detainee. As of the date of this order, the court has not received any objections to the Report, and the deadline for filing objections has expired.
Having considered the file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this habeas action for lack of jurisdiction as moot. The court also denies as moot Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in this action (Doc. 17).
Further, 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), the court denies a certificate of appealability. [*] The court determines that Petitioner has *2 Case 3:25-cv-00049-L-BW Document 21 Filed 07/02/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID 88 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 court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report filed in this case. In the event that a notice of appeal is filed, Petitioner must pay the appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered this 2nd day of July, 2025.
_________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge 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.
Order – Page 2
[*] Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides 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, Order – Page 1