Jones v. Bryant

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING 6 Report and Recommendation. This action is DISMISSED as untimely. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 4/18/2017. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

RICKEY JONES,
Petitioner,
-vsJASON BRYANT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1453-F

ORDER
On April 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin entered a Report and
Recommendation (doc. no. 6, “Report”) based upon his initial screening of the
petition. Magistrate Judge Goodwin’s detailed Report explains his recommendation
that the court dismiss the petition as untimely. Petitioner Jones filed an Objection
to the Report. Doc. no. 7. Those objections have been reviewed de novo.
In his objections petitioner argues that his petition is timely for various
reasons. The substance of his arguments was anticipated by the magistrate judge
and addressed in the Report. This court has reviewed the cases cited in petitioner’s
objections, as well as Rule 2.1(E) of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals which is also cited in the objections. Having done so, the court finds no
basis for the petitioner’s objections. Given the thoroughness of the analysis set out
in the Report, the court further finds that no purpose would be served by any
additional analysis here.

Petitioner’s objections to the Report are DENIED, and the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and
AFFIRMED. This action is DISMISSED as untimely.
Movant is entitled to a certificate of appealability only upon making a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that the issues movant seeks to raise are
deserving of further proceedings, debatable among jurists of reasons, or subject to
different resolution on appeal. See, Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(“[W]e give the language found in §2253(c) the meaning ascribed it in [Barefoot v.
Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)], with due note for the substitution of the word
‘constitutional.’”). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on
the merits,...[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id.
When a prisoner’s habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds without
reaching the merits of the prisoner’s claims, “a COA should issue when the prisoner
shows, at least, 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.” Id. Petitioner has not made the requisite showing, and a certificate of
appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of April, 2017.

16-1453p001.docx

2