Strickland v. Crow
This text of Strickland v. Crow (Strickland v. Crow) 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.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ALAN EUGENE STRICKLAND, ) Petitioner, VS. ) NO. CIV-21-0064-HE SCOTT CROW, Respondent. ORDER Petitioner Alan Eugene Strickland, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court conviction and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial proceedings. Judge Mitchell has issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion to proceed IFP be denied. Plaintiff, having failed to object to the Report, has waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #6] is ADOPTED. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. #4] is DENIED. Petitioner must pay the $5 filing fee within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order or his petition will be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. /] Dated this 5" day of March, 2021. JO XTON STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Strickland v. Crow, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strickland-v-crow-okwd-2021.