Chatman v. United States

Filing 8

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 6 Report and Recommendation.. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 2/23/2018. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SEBRINE CHATMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-1307-D

ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brought this action seeking relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Suzanne Mitchell for initial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §636(b). Upon review of
Plaintiff’s Petition (styled as “Petitioners [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment
§2241”), Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Report”)
[Doc. No. 6], which advised that the Court summarily dismiss Petitioner’s action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under § 2241. Judge
Mitchell directed any objections to the Report be filed on or before February 16,
2018. Id. at 4-5.
On February 5, 2018, the Court received a letter from Petitioner [Doc. No. 7],
which stated:

MOTION TO FILE OBJECTION TO REPORT, HAVE
RECORD STRICKEN AND TO REFILE
Comes now Petitioner, and move this Court. Petitioner plans to
file appeal to the 10th Circuit. In 1994 the Federal Courts told the state
to return to one man per cell.
Now 23 years later they have ignored this court order. This had
led to overcrowding and has affected the duration of his confinement.
Making § 2241 a valid cognizable claim against the State of Oklahoma.
Respectfully,
Sebrine Chatman
B1 106 JHCC
P.O. Box 548 LEX, OK, 73051
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court is required to make a de novo
determination of those portions of the R&R to which a specific objection has been
made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Where no
objection has been made, the Court has discretion to review the R&R under any
standard deemed appropriate, which is normally clear error. Dallas Buyers Club,
LLC v. Cordova, 81 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1027 (D. Colo. 2015) (citing Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991)).
Here, the Court finds Petitioner has made no specific objection to the R&R; thus, it
reviews the Report for clear error.1

1

Although Petitioner is entitled to have his arguments liberally construed, the Court
cannot take on the responsibility of serving as his attorney in constructing arguments
and searching the record. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836,
840 (10th Cir. 2005).
2

Having reviewed the Report, the Court is satisfied that there is no clear error
on the face of the record and agrees with Judge Mitchell that the Complaint should
be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 6] is
ADOPTED as though fully set forth herein. A judgment shall be issued forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of February 2018.

3