IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

SHEDERICK D. SMITH, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) LORIE DAVIS, Director TDCJ, ) ) Respondent. ) Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-668-C-BN

ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising that the Court should dismiss Petitioner’s habeas application with prejudice as time-barred under Rule 4 of the Rules governing Section 2254 cases. The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made.

(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989). After due consideration and having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that Petitioner’s objections should be OVERRULED. The Court has further conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is

' Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation on May 5, 2020, as well as on May 11, 2020. See Docs. 12 & 14.

therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus under

is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as time-barred. Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and

(c), this Court finds that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show that a reasonable jurist would find: (1) this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its pieedura Aung Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). SO ORDERED this AD aay of May, 2020.

fi ge. poaii ol J |sawe ° ) \SAMR. MINGS / ! SENIOR UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE (