From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gutierrez v. Patton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Nov 19, 2014
No. CIV-14-591-C (W.D. Okla. Nov. 19, 2014)

Opinion

No. CIV-14-591-C

11-19-2014

DAVID RAY GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. ROBERT PATTON, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 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 Suzanne Mitchell, consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Mitchell entered a Report and Recommendation on November 3, 2014, to which Petitioner has timely objected. The Court therefore considers the matter de novo.

Petitioner does not dispute the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation, but merely once again argues he was wrongly convicted. Nothing in his Objection serves to excuse the untimeliness of his Petition.

Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and for the reasons announced therein, this petition for habeas corpus relief is dismissed, as untimely. As no amendment can cure the defect, this dismissal acts as an adjudication on the merits, and a judgment will enter.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2014.

/s/_________

ROBIN J. CAUTHRON

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Gutierrez v. Patton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Nov 19, 2014
No. CIV-14-591-C (W.D. Okla. Nov. 19, 2014)
Case details for

Gutierrez v. Patton

Case Details

Full title:DAVID RAY GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. ROBERT PATTON, Director, Oklahoma…

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

Date published: Nov 19, 2014

Citations

No. CIV-14-591-C (W.D. Okla. Nov. 19, 2014)

Citing Cases

Ross v. Langford

Similarly, Petitioner has provided no details regarding the specific circumstances of 4-year-old S.T.'s…

Blacklock v. Schnurr

For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the affidavit is not reliable evidence. Cf. Scott v.…