N U.S. DISTRICT COURT ORTHERN D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION JUL 13 200 CHARLES KEITH McDONALD, III, § § CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COU Petitioner, § By _____ □□ § Deputy v. § 2:20-CV-107-Z § LORIE DAVIS, Director, § Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division, § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Before the Court are the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 6) to dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 3) filed by Petitioner in this case. 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, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED, and the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Feb. R. App. P. 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C.§ 2253(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 must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. SO ORDERED. July (3, 2020.

ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE