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

KEPHREN THOMAS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Vv. ) ) MARIAN BROWN, Dallas County Sheriff, ) ) Respondent. ) Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-1258-C-BN

ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismiss the pending habeas action, construed as being brought under

, without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to pursue available state court remedies. | The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error and finds none. It is 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 request for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED and Petitioner’s habeas petition, construed as being brought under

, is DISMISSED without prejudice. All relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED.’

' Petitioner has failed to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation and the time to do so has now expired. > The Court notes that Petitioner has filed several frivolous motions, rather than file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. Furthermore, and to the extent Petitioner sought that the Court provide him with copies of legal filings, the Court would advise that it maintains no such duty. In addition, even if Petitioner had filed timely objections, the outcome would not have changed as Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies.

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 Rae Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000).

SO ORDERED this AA _ day of June, 2020.

[y f A pat ly | / \ d hi / “SAM/R. CUMMINGS [ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE