Webb v. Jones et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 5 of Magistrate Judge Gary Purcell and TRANSFERS this case to the Eastern District of Oklahoma for all further proceedings. 28:2241(d). Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 06/18/2013. (lam)[Transferred from okwd on 6/18/2013.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER WAYNE WEBB,
Petitioner,
vs.
JUSTIN JONES, Director, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-13-0493-HE

ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 seeking habeas relief. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the case was referred
for initial proceedings to Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell. Judge Purcell has recommended
that the action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma, where jurisdiction exists because the petitioner is challenging a conviction
obtained in a state court located in that judicial district. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). While
jurisdiction also exists in the Western District of Oklahoma because the petitioner is
incarcerated at the Lawton Correction Facility, id., the magistrate judge recommended that
the action be transferred in the interest of justice because court records and counsel are
generally located in the district where the conviction was entered. Objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation were due by June 5, 2013.
The petitioner, having failed to object to the Report and Recommendation, waived his
right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. United States v. 2121
E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A
judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis
added)).

Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Purcell’s Report and

Recommendation [Doc. #5] and TRANSFERS this case to the Eastern District of Oklahoma
for all further proceedings. 28 U.S.C. §2241(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 18th day of June, 2013.

2