From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Craddock v. Bear

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Jul 22, 2015
No. CIV-12-1309-C (W.D. Okla. Jul. 22, 2015)

Opinion

No. CIV-12-1309-C

07-22-2015

STEVEN GLEN CRADDOCK, Petitioner, v. CARL BEAR, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action for habeas corpus relief brought by a prisoner, proceeding pro se, was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Goodwin entered a Report and Recommendation on June 30, 2015, to which Petitioner has timely objected. 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 ignores the limited review prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(1) and argues theories of relief not previously raised and/or not supported by the authority cited. There is no argument of fact or law which would require or even permit a different outcome than that recommended by Judge Goodwin.

Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and for the reasons announced therein, denies this petition for habeas corpus relief. A judgment will enter accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2015.

/s/_________

ROBIN J. CAUTHRON

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Craddock v. Bear

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Jul 22, 2015
No. CIV-12-1309-C (W.D. Okla. Jul. 22, 2015)
Case details for

Craddock v. Bear

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN GLEN CRADDOCK, Petitioner, v. CARL BEAR, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Date published: Jul 22, 2015

Citations

No. CIV-12-1309-C (W.D. Okla. Jul. 22, 2015)