OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL H. WATSON, District Judge.

On April 12, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed as barred by the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). EOF No. 14. Petitioner has filed an Objection to the R&R. EOF No. 17. Petitioner again argues that this action is timely, because neither the trial court nor his attorney advised him of his right to appeal.

As detailed in the R&R, the record does not support these allegations. The trial court advised Petitioner that he had a right to appeal within 30 days. See EOF No. 8. Further, Petitioner waited more than six years after the entry of his guilty plea to file a motion for a delayed appeal. Thus, the record does not indicate that he acted diligently in pursuing relief or that equitable toiling of the statute of limitations would be appropriate.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review. For the reasons detailed In the R&R, Petitioner's Objection, EOF No. 17, Is OVERRULED. The R&R, EOF No. 14, Is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action Is hereby DISMISSED.

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, the Court now considers whether to Issue a certificate of appealablllty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(d). When a claim has been denied on the merits, a certificate of appealablllty may Issue only Ifthe petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a petitioner must show "that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved In a different manner or that the Issues presented were `adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, n. 4 (1983)). When a claim has been denied on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealablllty may Issue If the petitioner establishes that jurists of reason would find Itdebatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find It debatable whether the district court was correct In Its procedural ruling. Id.

This Court is not persuaded that reasonable jurists would debate this Court's dismissal of Petitioner's claim as waived. Therefore, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that the appeal would not be In good faith and that an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.