IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

DANNER FORD PETITIONER

V. NO. 4:19-CV-2-DMB-JMV

PELICIA HALL, et al. RESPONDENTS

ORDER Danner Ford’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden. Doc. #13. I Procedural History On or about December 21, 2018, Danner Ford filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi challenging his 2010 convictions for murder, including a firearm enhancement, and for possessing a firearm as a felon. Doc. #1. After being ordered to respond,1 the State filed an answer to the petition. Doc. #5. Ford filed a traverse, Doc. #9, and a motion to amend his petition, Doc. #10. United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden denied Ford’s motion to amend but provided that the Court would “construe [the] filing as a traverse and consider it when deciding the case.” Doc. #12. On January 28, 2022, Judge Virden issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Ford’s petition be denied. Doc. #13. Ford acknowledged receipt of the R&R on February 8, 2022. Doc. #14. No objections to the R&R were filed. II Analysis Under

(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination

1 Doc. #3. of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz,

(S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989)). The Court, having reviewed the R&R, concludes that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the R&R will be adopted as

the order of the Court, and Ford’s petition will be denied. III Certificate of Appealability Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Court requires a court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability (“COA”) will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). To obtain a COA on a claim rejected on procedural grounds, a movant must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). For cases rejected on their merits, a movant “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong” to warrant a COA.

Based on the Slack criteria, the Court finds that a COA should not issue in this case. IV Conclusion The January 28, 2020, Report and Recommendation [13] is ADOPTED as the order of this Court. Ford’s petition [1] is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

2 SO ORDERED, this 24th day of February, 2022. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3