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

MELANIE S KNIGHTEN, § §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00167-RWS Plaintiff, §

§ v. §

§ DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § § Defendant. §

ORDER Petitioner Melanie S. Knighten, an inmate confined at the Woodman State Jail, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting petitioner’s motion to dismiss and dismissing this petition without prejudice. Docket No. 15 (“Report and Recommendation”). No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Because no objections 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 motion and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and agrees with the Report. 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, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to 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 she should prevail on the merits. Rather, she 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,

. 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,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(2000). Here, Petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by her claims are subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions advanced by Petitioner are not novel and have been consistently resolved adversely to her position. In addition, the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability shall not be issued. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court and Knighten’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are DENIED-AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of April, 2021.

foxhert LO (phimecis. G2, ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3