REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
A habeas petitioner may not appeal a final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 without first securing a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A district court should not grant a certificate of appealability unless the movant "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. § 2253(c)(2) This standard requires a demonstration that "jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claim or that jurists could conclude that issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-el v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). In other words, an applicant must show that the district court's resolution of the constitutional claim was either "debatable or wrong." Miller-el, 537 U.S. at 338. Any Certificate of Appealability issued by the Court must state "which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2)." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).
The undersigned entered a Report and Recommendation (R & R) on February 1, 2017, which recommended dismissal of the Petition as Petitioner had no federally protected right to state parole. ECF No. 23. The RR was adopted by this Court in its entirety on March 15, 2017. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion for Certificate of Appealability.
As noted in the R & R, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of violation of a constitutional right. Accordingly, his Motion for Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 28-29) should be denied.