UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MICHAEL SEAN SHOOK, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-489-G ) DAVID LOUTHAN, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ORDER On May 14, 2024, Petitioner Michael Sean Shook, a state prisoner, filed this action seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to

. See Pet. (Doc. No. 1). In accordance with

(b)(1), the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens for initial proceedings. On September 9, 2025, Judge Stephens issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20), in which he recommended that the petition be denied. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Stephens advised the parties of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation by September 30, 2025. Judge Stephens also advised that a failure to timely object would constitute a waiver of the right to appellate review of the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation. As of this date, no party has submitted an objection to the Report and Recommendation or sought leave for additional time to do so. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20) is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED. A separate judgment shall be entered. Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires the Court to 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.”

(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.” Méiller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)). Further, “[w]hen the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable 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.” Slack, 529 US. at 484. Upon review, the Court concludes that the requisite standard is not met in this case. Thus, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2025.

(Vauba B. Kodo United States District Judge