Blakes v. Warden of Federal Transfer Center

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 of Magistrate Judge Charles Goodwin...petitioner's claim asserted under 28:2241 is dismissed without prejudice as being moot and his remaining claims are dismissed with prejudice...petitioner's requests for production of documents, the appointment of counsel and for this lawsuit to be treated as a continuation of another dismissed action are denied. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 06/23/2014. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
THOMAS BLAKE,
Petitioner,
vs.
FEDERAL TRANSFER CENTER,
WARDEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-14-0488-HE

ORDER
Petitioner Thomas Blake appearing pro se, filed this action claiming he was being
illegally detained at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, past his
release date. He also made other conclusory and fanciful allegations of harm. The matter
was referred to Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin for initial proceedings consistent with
28 U.S.C. § 636. He has recommended that petitioner’s § 2241 claim of illegal detention be
dismissed as moot and his remaining claims1 be dismissed as being frivolous. The magistrate
judge also concluded that petitioner was not entitled to any documents filed in relation to an
indictment being sought against him in federal court in Oklahoma or to have this case be a
continuation of a case previously filed and dismissed in federal court in West Virginia.
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. One
Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (10th Cir. 1996); see 28 U.S.C. §

1

The magistrate judge construed these claims as being asserted under the Federal Tort
Claims Act or Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

636(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Goodwin’s Report and
Recommendation. Petitioner’s claim asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed without
prejudice as being MOOT and his remaining claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Petitioner’s requests for the production of documents, the appointment of counsel and for this
lawsuit to be treated as a continuation of another, dismissed action are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 23rd day of June, 2014.

2