Evans v. Bryant et al

Filing 34

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

Download PDF
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. The court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones for initial proceedings. When neither party objected to the magistrate judge’s Supplemental Report and Recommendation (“Report”), the court entered an order and judgment denying the habeas petition. The court subsequently vacated its order and judgment upon learning petitioner had not received the magistrate judge’s Report. The clerk mailed petitioner a copy and he was directed to file any objection to it by October 20, 2017. Petitioner was advised that if he failed to make timely objection to the Report he would waive the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. Petitioner has not objected to the Report or sought an extension of time within which to do so. He thereby waived his right to challenge its findings and conclusions. 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. A certificate of appealability is denied as the court finds petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 26th day of October, 2017. 2

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?