UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CHARLES L. FREDERICK, § § Petitioner, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-CV-189 § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-ID, § § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Charles L. Frederick, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of the court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending a dismissal of the petition without prejudice as moot. The court has received the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. After careful consideration, the court is of the opinion the objections are without merit. Petitioner challenged the failure to release him on parole. He was subsequently released from confinement. The authorities cited by the magistrate judge demonstrate this petition is moot because petitioner has already received the relief that would have been provided if his petition had been granted. ORDER Accordingly, the objections filed by petitioner are OVERRULED. 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 will be entered dismissing the petition. In addition, the court is of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a final judgment denying habeas relief may not proceed unless a certificate of appealability is issued. 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,

(2000); Elizalde v. Dretke,

(5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner is not required to establish that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues raised in the petition 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 should be 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. 2000). In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether this petition is moot is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions raised by petitioner have been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter.

2