Payne v. USA, No. 2:2022cv00126 - Document 10 (N.D. Tex. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 8 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 2 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255, filed by Brenda Aurora Payne. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 9/27/2023) (nht)

Download PDF
Payne v. USA Doc. 10 Case 2:22-cv-00126-Z-BR Document 10 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 52 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION BRENDA ATJRORA PAYNE, Petitioner 2:22-CV- 126-Z-BR V TJNITED STATES OF' AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge to dismiss the 28 U.S.C. S 2255 Motion to Vacate filed by Petitioner. ECF No. 9. No objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court concludes that the findings. conclusions. and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct. It is therefore ORDERED that thc lindings. conclusions. and recommendation of the Magistratc Judge arc ADOPTFi,D. and I)ctitioncr's case is DISMISSED. Considcring thc rccord in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appcllate Proccdurc 22(b). Rulc I l(a) ol'thc Rulcs (iovcrning Scction 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. and 28 tJ.S.C. \ 225-i(c). thc Court DENIES a certiticate of appealability becausc Petitioncr has lailcd to nrakc "n suhstanlial showing ol'thc dcnial of a constitutional right." Sluc'kv. Mc'l)unial. 529 t.l.S. 473.484 (2000): sac ulxt llarnuntle: y. Thuler.630 F.3d 420.424 (5th Cir.20l l).'l'hc Court ADOPTS and incorporatcs by rclbrence thc Magistrate Judge's findings. conclusions. and recommendation lrlcd in this case in support of its trnding that Petitioner has lailed to show (l) that reasonablc.iurists would lind this Court's "asscssment of the constitutional clairns debatablc Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00126-Z-BR Document 10 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 53 or wrong,' or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutionalright" and "debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack,529 U.S. at484. IT IS SO ORDERED. September il,2023 I.JN I'fE,D I J. KACSMARYK S]'A'T'ES DISTRICT .I[JDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.