Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-582-L-BK
03-21-2023
MICHAEL RAY FORBES, #13302-078, Petitioner, v. R. ZOOK and F. J. GARRIDO, Respondents.
ORDER
SAM A. LIND SAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On February 14, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver entered the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 12), recommending that the court deny with prejudice pro se Petitioner Michael Ray Forbes's (“Petitioner”) petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Doc. 3). The Report recommended dismissal because Petitioner did not show a violation of his due process rights when Defendants disallowed 41 days of “good time credits” for his infraction of “Possession of Drugs or Alcohol” (Prohibited Code 113). Doc. 12 at 3. Petitioner did not file objections to the Report, and the time to do has passed.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Petitioner has not shown an entitlement to habeas relief because the Defendants at FCI El Reno provided him with notice, a hearing with the opportunity to call witnesses, a staff member to assist him, and a written statement of the evidence that the fact finder relied upon. Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Doc. 3), and it dismisses with prejudice this action.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability.[*]The court determines that Petitioner has failed to show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court's “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong;” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge's report filed in this case. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered
[*] Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides as follows: (a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal. (b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a certificate of appealability.