UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

NATHAN JOVON SCOTT, 

#01873387,

Petitioner,

VS.

MICHAEL BRITT,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-1163-G-BH

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court is of

the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct,

and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. For the reasons

stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge, the Petition for A Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State

Custody, received on May 27, 2022 (docket entry 3), is DENIED with prejudice as

barred by the statute of limitations.

Case 3:22-cv-01163-G-BH Document 6 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 35
In accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 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 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.” 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.

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-01163-G-BH Document 6 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 36
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.

SO ORDERED.

July 7, 2022.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:22-cv-01163-G-BH Document 6 Filed 07/07/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 37