IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER FUENTES, § §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-CV-00148-RWS Petitioner, §

§ v. §

§ DIRECTOR TDCJ, § § Respondent. §

ORDER Petitioner Christopher Fuentes, a prisoner currently confined at the Allred Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The Court referred this matter to the Magistrate Judge, who recommends denying the petition. Docket No. 19 (“Report and Recommendation”). The Court has received and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. The petitioner acknowledged receiving the Report and Recommendation on May 13, 2020. Docket No. 20. Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been filed, neither party is entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, they are barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc.,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the petition and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. See United States v. Raddatz,

(1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants.’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 275 (1976)). Additionally, in this case, the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). The standard for granting a certificate of appealability, like that for granting a certificate of probable cause to appeal under prior law, requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Elizalde v. Dretke,

(5th Cir. 2004); see also Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1982). In making that substantial showing, the petitioner need not establish that he should prevail on the merits. Rather, he must 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 are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack,

; Avila v. Quarterman,

(5th Cir. 2009). If the petition was denied on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable: (1) whether the petition raises a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack,

; Elizalde,

. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability is resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson,

(Sth Cir. 2000). The petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to debate among jurists of reason, or that a procedural ruling was incorrect. In addition, the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. The petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 19) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court and Fuentes’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are DENIED AS MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of October, 2020.

[ache t LO Alrpecta G2, ROBERT W. SCHROEDER II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3