Teel v. Bear
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 8 Report and Recommendation.. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 7/31/2017. (mb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROBERT PAUL TEEL,
CARL BEAR, Warden,
Case No. CIV-17-455-D
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued
by United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
Upon initial screening, Judge Mitchell recommends that the Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and this action, should be summarily dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
The case file shows no timely objection to the Report or request for additional time
to object, even though Petitioner was expressly informed of his right to object, the
procedure for doing so, and the consequences of failing to object.
Therefore, the Court
finds that Petitioner has waived further review of all issues addressed in the Report.
Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121
East 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
For the reasons explained by Judge
Mitchell, the Court finds that this action should be summarily dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 8]
is ADOPTED in its entirety.
This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of
A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, the Court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”)
when it enters a final order adverse to a petitioner.
A COA may issue only upon “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).
“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching
the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, 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.”
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
“A petitioner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating 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
Upon consideration, the Court finds the requisite standard is not met in this case.
Therefore, a COA will be denied.
The denial shall be included in the judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2017.
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?