Seals v. Crow

United States District Court, Oklahoma Western

Seals v. Crow

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CURTIS BERNARD SEALS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-22-315-D ) SCOTT CROW, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9] issued by United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Mitchell recommends that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive habeas petition without Tenth Circuit authorization. The case file shows no timely objection to the Report nor request for an extension of time, even though Petitioner was expressly informed of his right to object, the procedure for doing so, and the consequences of failing to object. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has waived further review of all issues addressed in the Report. See Moore v. United States,

950 F.2d 656, 659

(10th Cir. 1991); United States v. 2121 East 30th Street,

73 F.3d 1057, 1060

(10th Cir. 1996). For the reasons explained by Judge Mitchell, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9] is ADOPTED in its entirety and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) when it enters a final order adverse to a petitioner. A COA may issue only upon “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 327

(2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). Upon consideration, the Court finds the requisite standard is not met in this case. Therefore, a COA 1s denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29" day of June, 2022.

\ Q- OPE TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown