IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

CHARLES REYNOLD DAUBITZ, III, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, ) ) Respondent. ) Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-2417-C-BK ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Petitioner’s habeas petition should be summarily dismissed with prejudice as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. ' The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error and finds none. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and

(c), this Court finds that a certificate of appealability is denied. For the reasons set forth in the United States Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, Movant has failed to show that a reasonable jurist would find: (1) this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) “it debatable whether the petition states a valid

'Petitioner has failed to file objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation and the time to do so has now expired.

claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). SO ORDERED. Dated March, 2022. if / F 7 a VII”

\ SAM’R. CUMMINGS SENIOR TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE