United States District Court NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SCOTTIE H. GIBSON, § ID No. 201901879 § § CIVIL ACTION NO, 3:21-CV-703-S-BH v. § § BRYAN GORDY §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case [ECF No. 16]. An objection was filed by Petitioner [ECF No. 17}. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objections were made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, - Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, Petitioner’s June 24, 2021 Motion to Request Respondant [sic] to Issue the Return of the Writ [ECF No. 15], is hereby construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and is DENIED. In accordance with Fed, R. App. P, 22(b) and

(c) and after considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 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 v. McDaniel,

(2000).' In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is accompanied by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account. SO ORDERED. SIGNED July 13, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Rule i1 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, as amended effective on December |, 2019, reads as follows: (a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by

(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal. (b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a certificate of appealability. These rules do not extend the time to appeal the original judgment of conviction.