Case Information
*1 Case 3:14-cv-01924-L-BN Document 16 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID 411
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION STEVEN RAY MILAM, #1836907, §
§ Petitioner, §
v. § Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-1924-L
§ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , §
§ Respondent. §
ORDER
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan, who entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 14) on July 30, 2015, recommending that the court grant the Motion to Dismiss Movant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Claim as Untimely (Doc. 12), filed October 27, 2014, and deny Petitioner Steven Ray Milam’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 3) as time- barred. The magistrate judge further determined that Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling to overcome the applicable statute of limitations. Petitioner filed objections to the Report, which were docketed on August 20, 2015.
After carefully reviewing the pleadings, file, objections, applicable law, 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 overrules Petitioner’s objections, denies his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 3), and dismisses with prejudice this action as time-barred.
Order – Page 1
Case 3:14-cv-01924-L-BN Document 16 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID 412
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 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 magistrate judge’s report filed in this case. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered this 6th day of October, 2015.
_________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge
[*] 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, 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