IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COMME TERN igo COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA FILED TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION

SCOTT EARL JOHNSON, JR., CER US DisTRIGy a er Petitioner, Deputy V. § = 2:19-CV-215-Z GRAY COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS On May 7, 2020, the United States Magistrate Judge entered findings and conclusions (ECF No. 34) on Petitioner’s “Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody” (the “Amended Petition”) (ECF No. 5). The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Amended Petition be DENIED as time-barred. No objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and that the Amended Petition (ECF No. 5) is DENIED. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and

(c), the Court denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); see also Hernandez v. Thaler,

(5" Cir. 2011). The

Court ADOPTS and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “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 procedural ruling.” Slack,

. If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3). SO ORDERED. June F, 2020. MATHEW J. KACSMARYK UNYTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE