Fletcher v. Masquelier

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JAMES JETTON FLETCHER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1289-J
)
DAVID ROGERS, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred for initial proceedings to
United States Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
(C). Judge Maxfield screened the Petition and issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that it be dismissed as untimely. [Doc. No. 10]. Despite being cautioned that he
must file any objection no later than January 23, 2026, see id. at 6, Petitioner did not object and
has waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and
Recommendation. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] and
DISMISSES the Petition as untimely.
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 the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 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
Case 5:25-cv-01289-J Document 11 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Petitioner
has failed to make either showing and the Court denies the COA.
A separate judgment will be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01289-J Document 11 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2