IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAJUAN SAUNDERS, Civil No. 4:20-cv-409 Petitioner (Judge Mariani) V. . . ep roe SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS SCRANTOR MCGINLEY, ef al., OCT 0 4 2922 Respondents . PER Ye □

. DEPUTY/CLERK | ORDER |. AND NOW, this ‘bay of October, 2022, upon consideration of the Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Doc. 49, Saunders v. □ Superintendent Coal Township SCI, et al., No. 22-2830 (3d Cir. Oct. 4, 2022)), remanding the matter for the sole purpose of either issuing a certificate of appealability or stating reasons why a certificate of appealability should not issue, and because a certificate of appealability should be issued only when a petitioner has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right,

(c)(2), and because a certificate of appealability is required to appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, see Bracey v. Superintendent Rockview SCI,

(3d Cir. 2021) (reaffirming Morris v. Horn,

(3d Cir. 1999), and holding that a certificate of appealability is required to hear an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion), the Court concludes that Petitioner has not made the requisite showing in this case based on the conclusions set forth in the August

24, 2022 Memorandum and Order denying Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment (Docs. 42, 43), and the Court thus FINDS THAT there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT no certificate of appealability shall issue. .

Robert D. Mariani _ United States District Judge