JOHNSON v. PATTON, CIV-14-1263-C. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20150826e41
Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBIN J. CAUTHRON , District Judge . This action for habeas corpus relief brought by a prisoner, proceeding pro se , was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell, consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Purcell entered a Report and Recommendation on August 11, 2015, to which Petitioner has timely objected. Petitioner also filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Motion which is premature, but in any event raises issues
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBIN J. CAUTHRON , District Judge . This action for habeas corpus relief brought by a prisoner, proceeding pro se , was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell, consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Purcell entered a Report and Recommendation on August 11, 2015, to which Petitioner has timely objected. Petitioner also filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Motion which is premature, but in any event raises issues a..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROBIN J. CAUTHRON, District Judge.
This action for habeas corpus relief brought by a prisoner, proceeding pro se, was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell, consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Purcell entered a Report and Recommendation on August 11, 2015, to which Petitioner has timely objected. Petitioner also filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Motion which is premature, but in any event raises issues also addressed in his Objection. The Court therefore considers the matter de novo.
The facts and law are accurately set out in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and there is no purpose to be served in repeating them yet again. In his objection, Petitioner merely restates the conclusions and legal argument originally asserted, and raises no issue not fully and accurately addressed and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 19), and for the reasons announced therein, denies this petition for habeas corpus relief. Petitioner's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Motion (Dkt. No. 21) is likewise denied. A judgment will enter accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
