govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-1_17-cv-00306-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
ROLAND KADERLI §
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17cv306
BOBBY RADER                                         §
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Roland Kaderli, a prisoner confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254.  The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States
Magistrate Judge.  The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge.  The Magistrate Judge recommends that the petition be dismissed without
prejudice as moot.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States 
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings.  Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law.  See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).  After careful consideration, the court concludes
petitioner’s objections lack merit.  Petitioner filed this petition as a pretrial detainee asserting his
pretrial detention was unconstitutional.  As petitioner was subsequently convicted of the offense with
which he was charged, the current petition is now moot.  Petitioner may file a separate petition
challenging his conviction after he exhausts his state remedies.
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.  The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the court.  A final judgment shall be entered in accordance with the
Case 1:17-cv-00306-MAC-CLS     Document 42     Filed 01/31/19     Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 
<pageID>
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
In addition, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability.  An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas relief may not proceed unless a
judge issues a certificate of appealability.  See U.S.C. § 2253.  The standard that must be met in order
to receive a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the
denial of a federal constitutional right.  See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000);
Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004).  To make a substantial showing, the petitioner
is not requited to demonstrate that he would prevail on the merits.  Rather, he need only demonstrate
that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in
a different manner, or that the questions presented in the petition are worthy of encouragement to
proceed further.  See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84.   Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate
of appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be
considered in making this determination.  See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.
2000).
In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether his petition is moot is
subject to debate among jurists of reason.  The factual and legal questions raised by petitioner have
been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worthy of
encouragement to proceed further.  As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue.  
      
Case 1:17-cv-00306-MAC-CLS     Document 42     Filed 01/31/19     Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight