IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRI □□□ FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ~ FILED AMARILLO DIVISION JUL 27 2021 DONALD WAYNE LEWIS, § CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT □□ § By—__,_—X Petitioner, § § v. § 2:18-CV-162-Z-BR § Director, TDCJ-CID, § § Respondent. § ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION, AND DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge to deny the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the petitioner in this case. (ECF 12). On July 12, 2021, the petitioner filed objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation. (ECF 13). After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, as well as the petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED, and the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 zZ 7 2021.

MAYIHEW J. KACSMARYK ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE