Hill v. Guffy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ARTHUR T. HILL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1198-G
)
WARDEN, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
On October 14, 2025, Petitioner Arthur T. Hill, a state prisoner appearing pro se,
filed a petition seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Pet.
(Doc. No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial proceedings.
On October 31, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc.
No. 4), in which she recommended that the pleading be dismissed as an unauthorized
second or successive habeas petition. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Mitchell
advised Petitioner of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation by November
21, 2025. Judge Mitchell also advised that a failure to timely object would constitute a
waiver of the right to appellate review of the factual findings and legal conclusions
contained in the Report and Recommendation.
As of this date, Petitioner has not submitted an objection to the Report and
Case 5:25-cv-01198-G Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Recommendation or sought leave for additional time to do so.1
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 4) is ADOPTED, and the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack
of jurisdiction. A separate judgment shall be entered.
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts require the Court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final
order adverse to a petitioner. A certificate of appealability may issue only upon “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “When
the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the
prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows,
at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Upon review, the Court concludes that the requisite standard is not met in this case.
Thus, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
1 The Report and Recommendation was mailed to Petitioner at both the initial and updated
addresses on file with the Court.
Case 5:25-cv-01198-G Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01198-G Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3