UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CEDRICK JEROME BASS, § § Petitioner, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-368 § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § § Respondent. § ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Cedrick Jerome Bass, a prisoner in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends denying the petition. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes the objections are without merit. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the state court’s rejection of his claims was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Nor did he demonstrate that the state court’s decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. In this case, Petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See

; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). The standard for granting a certificate of appealability, like that for granting a certificate of probable cause to appeal under prior law, requires 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); see also Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1982). In making that substantial showing, Petitioner need not establish that he should prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues 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. Slack,

. If the petition was denied on procedural grounds, Petitioner must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable: (1) whether the petition raises a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.

; Elizalde,

. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability is resolved in favor of Petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson,

(5th Cir. 2000). Here, Petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to

debate among jurists of reason, or that a procedural ruling was incorrect. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 2 ORDER Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections (#55) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge (#43)

is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued.

3