Thomas v. Director, TDCJ-CID

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JEWELL LEE THOMAS,
#02350417
§
§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:24-cv-1757-N (BT)
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID 	§
§
Respondent. 	§
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation
in this case. Petitioner filed objections. The District Court reviewed those parts of the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation to which the petitioner objected de novo. Finding no error, the
Court 	ACCEPTS 	the 	findings, 	conclusions, 	and 	recommendation 	of 	the 	United 	States
Magistrate Judge, and, by separate judgment, Petitioner’s habeas application will be dismissed.
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 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
Case 3:24-cv-01757-N-BT Document 47 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
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). 1
But, if the petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the $605.00
appellate filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
SO ORDERED this 27 th day of February, 2026.
_______________________________________
DAVID C. GODBEY
SENIOR JUDGE
1 	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.
Case 3:24-cv-01757-N-BT Document 47 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>