Marcus v. Director, TDCJ-CID

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ANTHONY JESUS MARCUS, §
ID # 02136900, §
Petitioner, §
§
v. § No. 3:23-CV-316-B-BW
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §
Respondent. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections
thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and
Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and
Conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge, the amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person
in State Custody, received on March 30, 2023 (Dkt. No. 5), will be DENIED with prejudice by
separate judgment.
In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the
record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the petitioner is DENIED a
Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 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
Case 3:23-cv-00316-B-BW Document 29 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

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).1
In the event that the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $605.00 appellate
filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is accompanied by a properly signed
certificate of inmate trust account.
SIGNED this 5th day of January, 2026.
1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as amended effective
on December 1, 2019, 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 3:23-cv-00316-B-BW Document 29 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>