Logsdon v. Harvanek

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 20 Report and Recommendation, DENYING 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENYING Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 8/6/12. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JACK AARON LOGSDON,
Petitioner,
vs.
KAMERON HARVANEK, Warden,
John Lilley Correctional Center,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-1471-F

ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action seeking habeas relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
Magistrate Judge Bana Roberts entered her Report and Recommendation in this
matter on June 29, 2012, recommending that the petition be denied. Doc. no. 20
Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommended findings and
conclusions. Doc. no. 21. The court reviews all objected to matters de novo.
Upon review, and having considered defendant’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.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Roberts is
ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and AFFIRMED in its entirety. 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; a certificate of appealability is
DENIED.
Dated this 6th day of August, 2012.

11-1471p002.wpd

-2-