Evans v. Bryant et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 26 of Magistrate Judge Bernard Jones...the court denies the petitioner's habeas petition. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 01/10/2017. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILLIAM DAVID EVANS, JR.,
Petitioner,
vs.
JASON BRYANT, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-14-0576-HE

ORDER
Petitioner William David Evans, Jr., a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking habeas relief. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B)
and C, the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones for initial proceedings.
The court previously adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in which
he concluded that petitioner’s claims were not procedurally barred. After receiving a
supplemental response from the respondent,1 the magistrate judge has now issued a thorough
Supplemental Report and Recommendation, in which he concludes that the petition should
be denied.
Neither party objected to the Supplemental Report and Recommendation.2 They

1

The magistrate judge noted that petitioner was given the opportunity to file a reply but
failed to do so.
2

The court notes that the last mailing sent to petitioner was returned as undeliverable.
However, it is the obligation of the parties, including pro se litigants, to inform the court of changes
in their address. See LCvR5.4 (“All papers shall contain the name, mailing address, daytime
telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address, if any, of the attorney or pro se litigant. If any
of this information changes, the attorney or pro se litigant must notify the court by filing the form
provided by the clerk and serving a copy on opposing counsel or pro se parties. Papers sent by the
court will be deemed delivered if sent to the last known address given to the court.”).

thereby waived their right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed.
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jones’s Supplemental Report and
Recommendation and DENIES the habeas petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2017.

2