MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARK E. FORD, Magistrate Judge.

By Order entered February 14, 2019 (ECF No. 60), the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 58), and it denied and dismissed the Defendant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Defendant then filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 63). No application to proceed in forma pauperis was filed by Defendant in connection with his Notice of Appeal.

On March 26, 2019, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Defendant either to pay the $505 appellate filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court within 21 days. (ECF No. 66). Defendant failed to either pay the appellate filing fee or file a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis; and, on April 30, 2019, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Defendant to show cause, within 14 days, why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 69). Defendant failed to respond to the Eighth Circuit's Order directing him to show cause. The Eighth Circuit's Judgment dismissing Defendant's appeal for failure to prosecute was entered on May 24, 2019 (ECF No. 70-1), and the Mandate was issued on the same date (ECF No. 70).

Defendant then filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis in this Court on May 31, 2019. (ECF No. 71). Defendant's Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis was referred to the undersigned. A Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was filed on May 31, 2019, in which the denial of Defendant's Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis was recommended. (ECF No. 72).

Also on May 31, 2019, Defendant filed a Response to Show Cause Why the Appeal Should Not Be Dismissed with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Construing Defendant's filing as a motion to recall the mandate and reopen the appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 6, 2019 entered an Order to reopen the appeal and recall its mandate. (ECF No. 73). The clerk was directed to send a copy of the form motion for permission to appeal in forma pauperis to Defendant, and Defendant was granted 14 days to file his in forma pauperis motion with the clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. (Id.).

Defendant then filed another Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis on June 17, 2019. (ECF No. 74). Defendant's motion was referred to the undersigned on the same date.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue only if "the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." A "substantial showing" is a showing that "issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings." Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 834 (1998). In its Order entered on February 14, 2019, the Court found that Defendant failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and it ordered that no certificate of appealability shall issue.

Accordingly, it is recommended that Defendant's Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 74) be DENIED.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.