Shavers v. United States of America et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 and dismissing without prejudice Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Honorable Patrick R Wyrick on 1/7/2021. (ks)

Case 5:20-cv-00940-PRW Document 12 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 2

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

JOHNNY LAFONZA SHAVERS,
Petitioner,
v.
LUKE PETTIGREW,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-20-00940-PRW

ORDER
On December 10, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell issued a
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11) in this action, recommending that Petitioner’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) be dismissed without prejudice for his failure
to exhaust state remedies.
Petitioner was advised that he had a right to object to the Report and
Recommendation by December 30, 2020, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and that failure to make a timely objection would waive any
right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 11). No objections have been filed as of this date. Having failed to
object, Petitioner has accordingly waived his right to appellate review of the factual and
legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11). 1

1

United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (10th Cir. 1996);
Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(requiring a district judge to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
1

Case 5:20-cv-00940-PRW Document 12 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 2

Upon review of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11), the Court:
(1)

ADOPTS in full the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11) issued by the
Magistrate Judge on December 10, 2020; and

(2)

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of January 2021.

or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made” but
otherwise permitting a district judge to review the report and recommendations under any
standard it deems appropriate).
2