Horton v. Standifird et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Report and Recommendation, DENYING 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENYING Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 4/4/12. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CURTIS EUGENE HORTON,
Petitioner,
vs.
TERRY MARTIN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-0401-F

ORDER
This action seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner appears
pro se and his pleadings are liberally construed.
Magistrate Judge Bana Roberts entered her Report and Recommendation in this
matter on January 31, 2012, recommending that the petition be denied. (Doc. no. 13.)
Petitioner filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommended findings and
conclusions. (Doc. no. 16.) The court reviews all objected to matters de novo.
Having considered petitioner’s objections, the court concurs with the magistrate
judge’s determinations and concludes that it would not be useful to cite any additional
arguments or authorities here.
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Roberts is ACCEPTED,
ADOPTED and AFFIRMED in its entirety. Accordingly, the Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability only upon making a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that the issues movant seeks to raise are
deserving of further proceedings, debatable among jurists of reasons, or subject to
different resolution on appeal. See, Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)

(“[W]e give the language found in §2253(c) the meaning ascribed it in [Barefoot v.
Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)], with due note for the substitution of the word
‘constitutional.’”). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on
the merits,...[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. When
a prisoner’s habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the
merits of the prisoner’s claims, “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.” Id.
Petitioner has not made the requisite showing and a certificate of appealability
is DENIED.
Dated this 4th day of April, 2012.

11-0401p003.wpd

-2-