Williams v. Oklahoma State of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
COYANTE JACOY WILLIAMS, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-199-SLP
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
O R D E R
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeus
Corpus [Doc. No. 1], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 20, 2026, United States
Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens entered a Report and Recommendation
recommending the Court dismiss the Petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
[Doc. No. 4] at 5–6.
Petitioner was advised that he could object to the R&R on or before March 13, 2026,
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, Petitioner has not filed an objection to the
R&R, nor has he sought an additional extension of time. Upon review, the Court concurs
with the analysis set forth in the R&R.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R [Doc. No. 4] is ADOPTED in its
entirety, and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate Judgment
of Dismissal shall be entered contemporaneously with this Order.
Case 5:26-cv-00199-SLP Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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 upon “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 	See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 	When the
district court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner must make
this showing by demonstrating both “[1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [2] 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). 	The Court finds that
reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the Court’s determination. The Court
therefore denies a COA.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20 th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00199-SLP Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 2