Purdy v. Harpe
Purdy v. Harpe
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
AARON C. PURDY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-348-D ) STEVEN HARPE, ) ) Respondent. )
ORDER Petitioner Aaron C. Purdy brought this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254[Doc. No. 1] (“Petition”). The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin for initial proceedings consistent with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Respondent Steven Harpe filed a Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 10], and Petitioner filed an Amended Reply [Doc. No. 16]. On December 20, 2024, Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20] (“R&R”), in which he recommends that the Petition be denied. In the R&R, Judge Erwin notified Petitioner of his right to file an objection to the R&R on or before January 6, 2025, and that the failure to object waives Petitioner’s right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained in the R&R. See Moore v. United States,
950 F.2d 656, 659(10th Cir. 1991). Upon review of the file and noting no timely objection to the findings and recommendations of Judge Erwin, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. No. 20] in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED. A separate judgment shall be entered accordingly. 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. ACOA may issue only if Petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, a court rejects a claim on the merits, the petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of [that claim] debatable or wrong.” United States v. Park,
727 F. App’x 526, 528 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting 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 is DENIED. The denial shall be included in the judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24" day of January, 2025.
LA yO TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown