Chapman v. Allbaugh
ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ; mailed to Billy Ray Chapman #137223 HOLDENVILLE-DCF 6888 E 133rd Rd Holdenville, OK 74848-9033. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 10/19/17. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BILLY RAY CHAPMAN,
JOE M. ALLBAUGH,
Case No. CIV-17-647-C
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner filed the present action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Shon T. Erwin, who entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on September
22, 2017, recommending the Petition be dismissed. Rather than object, Petitioner filed a
Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s Response (Dkt. No. 15) and a Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. No. 16).
The substantive facts and law are accurately set out in Judge Erwin’s R&R and there
is no purpose to be served in repeating them yet again. As Judge Erwin noted, Petitioner’s
§ 2241 action is untimely. Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary
Judgment fail to make objections to the R&R based on the facts or law contained therein.
The Motions primarily rely on inaccurate facts, complaining Respondent failed to respond
to the Petition. However, Respondent properly responded by filing a timely Motion to
Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11), which is addressed in the R&R. Because Petitioner does not address
the legal or factual underpinnings of Judge Erwin’s R&R, habeas relief is not warranted.
As set forth more fully herein, the Court adopts, in full, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 13). This matter is DISMISSED
without prejudice, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 6) is
DENIED, Respondent’s Motion to Withdraw (Dkt. No. 14) is GRANTED, and all other
pending motions are stricken as MOOT. A separate judgment will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of October, 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?