Huff v. Crow

• Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: November 21, 2024
• Docket: 5:22-cv-00051
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ANDREW WALLACE HUFF, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Case No. CIV-22-51-PRW v. ) ) SCOTT CROW, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER This case comes before the Court on U.S. Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 29), recommending that Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition be denied. The Petition (Dkt. 1) raised twenty grounds for habeas relief. In considering the Petition, Magistrate Judge Green applied the standards of review set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 29) reviewed the underlying proceedings before the trial court and the adjudications made by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. After a thorough review of Petitioner’s claims, Judge Green recommends that all of Petitioner’s grounds for habeas relief be denied. Judge Green concluded her Report and Recommendation by advising Petitioner of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation and that any failure to object would result in a waiver of the right to appellate review.! Petitioner filed no objections. This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 29) and agrees with the reasoning and conclusions therein. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 29) in full and DENIES the Petition (Dkt. 1) on all grounds.” IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of November 2024.

PATRICK R. WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). ? Before a habeas petitioner may appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition, he must obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). Vreeland v. Zupan, 906 F.3d 866, 875 (10th Cir. 2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)). A COA may issue only upon “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists of reasons could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Upon consideration, the Court finds the requisite showing is not met in this case. Therefore, a COA is DENIED.