Curry v. Goldey

W.D. Oklahoma

Curry v. Goldey

DecidedMarch 24, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00114

StatusUnknown

This text of Curry v. Goldey (Curry v. Goldey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curry v. Goldey, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JERITON LAVAR CURRY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-114-J ) FNU GOLDEY, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER

Petitioner, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 5]. The matter was referred for initial proceedings to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1)(B), (C). On preliminary review, Judge Mitchell found Petitioner had sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee and recommended that his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. [Doc. No. 7]. Petitioner filed a motion to amend his habeas petition but did not object to Judge Mitchell’s Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 8]. Petitioner has therefore waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed therein. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7], DENIES Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 5], and ORDERS Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee in full within twenty-one days, or no later than April 14, 2025. Petitioner is advised that if he does not pay the full $5.00 filing fee on or before that date, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. If payment is received, the Court will address Petitioner’s motion to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24 day of March, 2025.

BERNARD M. JONES : UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JERITON LAVAR CURRY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-114-J ) FNU GOLDEY, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER

Petitioner, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 5]. The matter was referred for initial proceedings to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1)(B), (C). On preliminary review, Judge Mitchell found Petitioner had sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee and recommended that his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. [Doc. No. 7]. Petitioner filed a motion to amend his habeas petition but did not object to Judge Mitchell’s Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 8]. Petitioner has therefore waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed therein. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7], DENIES Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 5], and ORDERS Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee in full within twenty-one days, or no later than April 14, 2025. Petitioner is advised that if he does not pay the full $5.00 filing fee on or before that date, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. If payment is received, the Court will address Petitioner’s motion to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24 day of March, 2025.

BERNARD M. JONES : UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Curry v. Goldey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-goldey-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack