UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS RONALD EUGENE HILL, § § Petitioner, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:21-CV-41 § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner, Ronald Eugene Hill, an inmate currently confined at the O.L. Luther Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, 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 Lufkin, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. On February 28, 2024, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation (#16) in which he recommended denying the habeas petition. To date, Petitioner has not filed objections to the report. The court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. ORDER Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report (#16) of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A Final Judgment will be entered in

this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Furthermore, 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. See Slack,

. 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.), cert. denied,

(2000). Here, Petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions advanced by Petitioner are not

novel and have been consistently resolved adversely to his position. In addition, the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, Petitioner has failed to make 2 a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Therefore, a certificate of appealability shall not be issued.

Signed this date Mar 21, 2024

MARCIA A. CRONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE