UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLARENCE BOLDEN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 23-5726 JANORRIS BOMMERY, ET AL. SECTION D(4)

ORDER The Court, having considered the Petition Under

Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person In State Custody, which the Court construes as a petition for habeas corpus relief under

,1 the record, the applicable law, the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,2 to which there are no objections,3 and having determined that the Report and Recommendation is not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law, hereby approves the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. Additionally, Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing

proceedings provides that, “The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A court may only issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 4 The “controlling standard” for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a

1 R. Doc. 9. 2 R. Doc. 28. 3 Objections were due by April 17, 2024. R. Doc. 28. This Court has given Petitioner almost two weeks beyond that deadline to file objections. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed. 4

(c)(2). different manner or that the issues presented [are] adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”> The Court finds that Clarence Bolden’s Petition fails to satisfy this standard. As such, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Clarence Bolden’s petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to

and construed as seeking relief under

is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. New Orleans, Louisiana, April 30, 2024. ed Vette WENDY B. VATTER United States District Court

5 Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 326 & 336,

, 1034 & 1039,

(2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

, 120 8.Ct. 1595,

(2000)) Gnternal quotation marks omitted).