IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION BRODRICK WALKER § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19cv3 DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Brodrick Walker proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The Court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Caroline M. Craven, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to

and applicable orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the petition be denied. The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation. Thus, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. There being no grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Additionally, the Court is of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas relief may not proceed unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

. The standard for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel,

; Elizalde v. Dretke,

(5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner need not demonstrate that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues he raises are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues raised 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 should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty imposed may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson,

(5th Cir. 2000). In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether his petition is meritorious is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal issues raised by petitioner have been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worth of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter. ORDER Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment shall be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of February, 2022.

RODNEY GILSTRAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE