Scruggs v. USA
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 2/19/20. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
JOHN SCRUGGS
§
VS.
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:16cv196
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
John Scruggs, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled motion to vacate, set aside or correct
sentence. The court referred the matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate
Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable orders of this court.
The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge concerning this case. The Magistrate Judge recommends the motion to vacate, set
aside or correct sentence be denied.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. No objections were filed to the Report and
Recommendation.
ORDER
Accordingly, the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate
Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED. A final judgment will
be entered denying this motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence.
In addition, the movant is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An
appeal from a judgment denying collateral habeas relief may not proceed unless a judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for granting a certificate of
appealability requires a movant to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal
constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84; Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323,
328 (5th Cir. 2004). In making a substantial showing, the movant 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. Slacke, 529 U.S. at 483-84; Avila v. Quarterman,
560 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 2009). Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of
appealability should be resolved in favor of the movant. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 28081 (5th Cir. 2000).
In this case, the movant has not shown that the issues raised are subject to debate among
jurists of reason. In addition, the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed
further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not be issued.
So ORDERED and SIGNED February 19, 2020.
____________________________
Ron Clark, Senior District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?