Patillar v. Warden

W.D. Oklahoma

Patillar v. Warden

DecidedJune 30, 2023

Docket5:22-cv-00866

StatusUnknown

This text of Patillar v. Warden (Patillar v. Warden) 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

Patillar v. Warden, (W.D. Okla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CALVIN PATILLAR, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-22-866-SLP ) KRIS GOLDEY, Warden, FCI EL RENO, ) ) Respondent. )

O R D E R

Petitioner, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Petition [Doc. No. 1] seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 26, 2023, United States Magistrate Amanda Maxfield Green entered a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 14] (R.&R.) recommending the Petition be denied on the basis that Petitioner is ineligible for time credits under the First Step Act. Petitioner was advised that he could object to the R.&R. on or before June 16, 2023, and that failure to timely object could result in the waiver of his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues raised. To date, no objection to the R. & R. has been filed nor has an extension of time in which to object been sought or granted. Upon review, the Court concurs with the analysis set forth in the R.&.R. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R.& R. [Doc. No. 14] is ADOPTED in its entirety and the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED.1

1 Because Petitioner is a federal prisoner, he does not need a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition. See Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2015). Therefore, the Court need not consider whether to issue a COA in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30" day of June, 2023.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CALVIN PATILLAR, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-22-866-SLP ) KRIS GOLDEY, Warden, FCI EL RENO, ) ) Respondent. )

O R D E R

Petitioner, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Petition [Doc. No. 1] seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 26, 2023, United States Magistrate Amanda Maxfield Green entered a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 14] (R.&R.) recommending the Petition be denied on the basis that Petitioner is ineligible for time credits under the First Step Act. Petitioner was advised that he could object to the R.&R. on or before June 16, 2023, and that failure to timely object could result in the waiver of his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues raised. To date, no objection to the R. & R. has been filed nor has an extension of time in which to object been sought or granted. Upon review, the Court concurs with the analysis set forth in the R.&.R. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R.& R. [Doc. No. 14] is ADOPTED in its entirety and the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED.1

1 Because Petitioner is a federal prisoner, he does not need a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition. See Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2015). Therefore, the Court need not consider whether to issue a COA in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30" day of June, 2023.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Patillar v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patillar-v-warden-okwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack