Wood v. Wilkinson

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 51 , granting 47 petitioner's Motion to Delete Ground V of His Habeas Petition, denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in its entirety, and denying 45 petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel. Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 2/22/2017. (ks)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MICHAEL W. WOOD, Petitioner, vs. JOE M. ALLBAUGH, Director, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-13-628-M ORDER On December 22, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin issued a Report and Recommendation in this action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Magistrate Judge recommended that petitioner’s motion to amend the Petition by deleting the claims which petitioner lists as “Ground V” be granted and that the amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied in its entirety. The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation by January 11, 2017. Having received an extension of time, petitioner filed his objection on February 13, 2017. In his objection, petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Having carefully reviewed this matter de novo, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation [docket no. 51] issued by the Magistrate Judge on December 22, 2016; (2) GRANTS petitioner’s Motion to Delete Ground V of His Habeas Petition [docket no. 47]; (3) DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in its entirety; (4) DENIES petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel [docket no. 45]; and (5) ORDERS that judgment in favor of respondent issue forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2017.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?