McClure v. Fox

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 14 Report and Recommendation,, ; ORDER 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Roderrette D McClure, 13 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Jurisdiction filed by John B Fox :; adopting Report and Recommendations re 14 Report and Recommendation.. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 11/30/16. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RODERRETTE D. MCCLURE,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN FOX,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-127-R

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Charles B. Goodwin entered October 31, 2016. Doc. No. 14. No objection to the
Report and Recommendation has been filed nor has an extension of time in which to object
been sought or granted. Therefore, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is ADOPTED in its entirety and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, the undersigned denies Petitioner a Certificate of
Appealability. Where a habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds, Petitioner is
entitled to a COA only if he demonstrates that “jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists
of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Stack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).
When a habeas petition is denied on the merits, Petitioner is entitled to a COA only if he
1

demonstrates “that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his
constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123
S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931, 944 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, supra). Petitioner has
not made either showing and is therefore not entitled to a COA.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2016.

2