Frederick v. Johnson

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSEPH FREDERICK, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-837-R
)
CASEY HAMILTON, Warden, 	)
et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued
by United States Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens [Doc. No. 19]. Petitioner Joseph
Frederick, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended Petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 10] challenging the execution of his sentence.
Respondent Casey Hamilton filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition [Doc. No. 17]. In his
Report, Judge Stephens recommends denial of the Motion to Dismiss. Respondent filed an
Objection to the Report [Doc. No. 20] and the Court must therefore make a de novo
determination of the portions of the Report to which a specific objection is made. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
When a magistrate judge has issued a report and recommendation on a dispositive
motion or prisoner petition, parties may object to the findings before the district court
reviews them. See FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b). “‘[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de
novo review by the district court or for appellate review.’” Hall v. Miller, No. CIV-25-
Case 5:24-cv-00837-R Document 21 Filed 10/24/25 Page 1 of 3

2
00518-JD, 2025 WL 2630738, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 12, 2025) (quoting United States v.
2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)). “A specific objection ‘enables the
district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of
the parties’ dispute.’” Id. (quoting 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d at 1059). “A judge of the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
party waives further review of a Report and Recommendation where he fails to specifically
object to it. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d at 1060.
Judge Stephens recommends denial of Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss based on
his findings that (1) Petitioner properly brought his claims in a habeas petition under 28
U.S.C. 	§ 2241 	and 	(2) 	Petitioner 	plausibly 	alleged 	a 	prison 	official’s 	threats 	and
intimidation prevented him from exhausting the administrative remedies normally required
before habeas relief may be sought. Respondent objected to Judge Stephens’s report, but
“only to the extent that the claim may be moot or lacking in case or controversy because
no earned credits were revoked as a result of the disciplinary proceeding and dismissal is
still proper.” Doc. No. 20 at p. 1.
“[T]heories raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s report are
deemed waived.” United States v. Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing
Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996)). Respondent did not assert
mootness as a ground for dismissal until his Objection and has therefore waived the Court’s
consideration of this argument at this stage. Because Respondent did not specifically object
Case 5:24-cv-00837-R Document 21 Filed 10/24/25 Page 2 of 3

3
to Judge Stephens’s findings on any other grounds, he has waived review of the Report and
Recommendation.
Judge Stephens’s Report and Recommendation is therefore ADOPTED in its
entirety and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of October, 2025.
Case 5:24-cv-00837-R Document 21 Filed 10/24/25 Page 3 of 3