Limbaugh v. Grant

Order – Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
STEPHEN GLEN LIMBAUGH, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-533-L-BW
§
S. GRANT, 	§
§
Respondent. 	§
ORDER
On January 26, 2026, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 10) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss without
prejudice this habeas action, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for lack of jurisdiction on
mootness grounds because Petitioner has received all relief he sought in this case in the form of
credit against his sentence, and there is no live case or controversy. No objections to the Report
have been received or docketed as of the date of this order, the 14-day period to object has expired,
and Petitioner has not sought an extension of any deadlines.
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.
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
* Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides as follows:
Case 3:25-cv-00533-L-BW Document 11 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

Order – Page 2
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 $505 appellate
filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered this 20th day of February, 2026.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
(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 3:25-cv-00533-L-BW Document 11 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>