Smith v. Oklahoma State of

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 5/14/14. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
NICOIS M. SMITH,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-14-323-C

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This action for habeas corpus relief brought by a state detainee, proceeding pro se,
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell, consistent with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Judge Purcell entered a Report and

Recommendation on April 16, 2014, and Petitioner has responded with a “Motion of
Discovery” and “Probable Cause Affidavit,” identical but for their captions, which the Court
will construe as timely-filed objections and consider the matter de novo.
The facts and relevant law are set out in full in the accurate and well-reasoned opinion
of the Magistrate Judge. No point would be served in repeating that analysis. Petitioner does
not specifically dispute either the factual recitation or the legal reasoning employed by the
Magistrate Judge, but rather reasserts some apparently unrelated allegations of wrongdoing.
There is no argument of fact or law set forth in the objection which would require a different
result.

Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, and for the reasons announced therein, this petition for habeas corpus relief
is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2014.

2