Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL RAY FORBES, #13302-078, §

§

 Petitioner, §

§

v. §

§

 Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-582-L-BK

R. ZOOK and F. J. GARRIDO, §

§

 Respondents. §

ORDER

On February 14, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver entered the 

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) 

(Doc. 12), recommending that the court deny with prejudice pro se Petitioner Michael Ray 

Forbes’s (“Petitioner”) petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Doc. 3). The 

Report recommended dismissal because Petitioner did not show a violation of his due process 

rights when Defendants disallowed 41 days of “good time credits” for his infraction of “Possession 

of Drugs or Alcohol” (Prohibited Code 113). Doc. 12 at 3. Petitioner did not file objections to the 

Report, and the time to do has passed.

Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines 

that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of 

the court. Petitioner has not shown an entitlement to habeas relief because the Defendants at FCI 

El Reno provided him with notice, a hearing with the opportunity to call witnesses, a staff member 

to assist him, and a written statement of the evidence that the fact finder relied upon. Accordingly, 

the court denies Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Doc. 3), 

and it dismisses with prejudice this action. 

Case 3:22-cv-00582-L-BK Document 13 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 116
Order – Page 2

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), 

the court denies a certificate of appealability.* The court determines that Petitioner has failed to 

show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong;” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this 

determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s report filed 

in this case. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate 

filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

It is so ordered this 21st day of March, 2023.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

* Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate 

of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, 

the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the 

court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the 

denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an 

order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court 

issues a certificate of appealability.

Case 3:22-cv-00582-L-BK Document 13 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 117