Martin v. Bear

Filing 11

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 9 Report and Recommendation.. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 12/15/16. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DENNIS MARTIN,
Petitioner,
vs.
CARL BEAR, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1170-D

ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 seeking habeas relief for wrongful incarceration; denial of access to courts, due
process, and suspension of habeas corpus; and violations of various provisions of the
Oklahoma Constitution. See Pet. [Doc. No. 1] at 7. The matter was referred to Magistrate
Judge Bernard M. Jones for initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On November 30, 2016, Judge Jones issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9]
wherein he recommended dismissal of the Petition for failing to “present a cognizable claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” R. & R. [Doc. No. 9] at 7.
In his Objection [Doc. No. 10], Petitioner presents no persuasive argument or
authority that would cause this Court to reject Judge Jones’s conclusions. Indeed, it is
difficult to discern precisely what Petitioner contends the Magistrate Judge got wrong.
Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the entirety of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation, as well as the record of the case, and fully concurs in the Report and
Recommendation.
Therefore, the Court, having conducted a de novo review,1 finds that Petitioner’s
Objection is overruled, and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9]
in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice
to filing a proper form of action.
IT IS SO ORDERED the 15th day of December, 2016.

1

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), where the district court refers dispositive matters to a
magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, the district court “must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Id.; Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 812 F.3d
1238, 1246 (10th Cir. 2015).