1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GREGORY LEWIS MARTINEZ,

ID #01861958,

Petitioner,

v.

KELLY STRONG, Warden,

Respondent.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 22-CV-00673-X-BH

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 4]. No objections were filed. The District 

Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain 

error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge, Martinez’s Motion to Extend Time for Filing Habeas 

Corpus, received on March 22, 2022, [Doc. No. 3], is DISMISSED for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c) and after considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge, the petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. The 

Case 3:22-cv-00673-X-BH Document 7 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 28
2

Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s findings, 

conclusions and recommendation in support of its finding that the 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.”1 

In the event that the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 

appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is 

accompanied by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of May, 2022.

____________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases in the United States District Courts, as amended effective on December 1, 2019, reads 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-00673-X-BH Document 7 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 29