Riley v. Louthan

1
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner Michael P. Riley brought this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. No. 1].
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial
proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). On May 28, 2025, the
magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 19], in which she
recommends that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 16] be GRANTED and the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be DISMISSED without
prejudice. Specifically, the magistrate judge concludes that the Court lacks jurisdiction over
any claims related to convictions for which Petitioner has fully discharged his sentences
(Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2003-3531, CF-2004-3428, and CM-
2003-2564). Further, the magistrate judge explains that—for the state sentence that
Petitioner 	is 	currently 	serving—Petitioner’s 	habeas 	petition 	is 	time-barred 	by 	the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
In her report, the magistrate judge notified Petitioner of his right to file an objection
to the report on or before June 18, 2025, and that the failure to object waives Petitioner’s
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL P. RILEY, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-1325-D
)
DAVID LOUTHAN, 	)
Case 5:24-cv-01325-D Document 21 Filed 07/28/25 Page 1 of 3

2
right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained in the report. See Moore
v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
On June 23, 2025, the Court received Petitioner’s Notice [Doc. No. 20], in which
Petitioner notified the Court that he intended to object to the magistrate judge’s report, and
that the “objection will follow close behind this notice.” [Doc. No. 20, at 1]. However, it
has been more than one month since the Court received Petitioner’s notice, and the Court
has not received any objection from Petitioner.
Upon review of the file and noting no timely objection to the findings and
recommendations 	of 	the 	magistrate 	judge, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 19] in its entirety.
For the reasons stated therein, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 16] is
GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice.
A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, the Court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability (COA) when
it enters a final order adverse to a petitioner. A COA may issue only if Petitioner “has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 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 could conclude
the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El
v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
Case 5:24-cv-01325-D Document 21 Filed 07/28/25 Page 2 of 3

3
(2000). “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, 529
U.S. at 484. Upon consideration, the Court finds the requisite standard is not met in this
case. Therefore, a COA is DENIED. The denial shall be included in the judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2025.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-01325-D Document 21 Filed 07/28/25 Page 3 of 3