IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION WILLIE LAMPLEY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) C. RIVERS, ) ) Respondent. ) Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1857-C-BN ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that this civil action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiciton. 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—including six extra days allowed for normal mail time delays.1 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 this civil action be DISMISSED without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and

(c), this Court finds that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to show that a reasonable jurist would find: (1) this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional 1Petitioner filed an Amended Petition, but failed to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. Petitioner’s filing does not change the well-reasoned recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) “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). SO ORDERED. Dated September 20, 2022.

pr) AAdE2 27074 SAR. LUMMINGS SENIOR UNITEDSTATES DISTRICVJMDGE