Lane v. Oklahoma State of

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTIAN VANCE LANE,
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID WEBER, Comanche County Detention
Center Jail Administrator,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-255-D
ORDER
Petitioner Christian Vance Lane, a pro se Oklahoma prisoner, brought this action
seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [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) and (C). [Doc. No. 3].
On March 25, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
[Doc. No. 8], in which she recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice
for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state court remedies and due to his ongoing state court
proceedings.1 In her report, the magistrate judge notified Petitioner of his right to file an
objection to the report on or before April 15, 2026, and that the failure to object waives
1 After the report was issued, Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash or Reduce Charge [Doc.
No. 9]. Upon review of the motion’s case caption, it appears Petitioner meant to file it in
his District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma proceedings. See State of Oklahoma v.
Lane, No. CF-2023-63 (Okla. Dist. Ct. of Comanche Cnty. 2023). To the extent Petitioner
meant to file the motion in this Court, the Court declines to address it for the same reasons
stated in the report.
Case 5:26-cv-00255-D Document 10 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Petitioner’s 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).
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. 8] in its entirety.
For the reasons stated therein, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 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 petition. 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
(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
Case 5:26-cv-00255-D Document 10 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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 29 th day of April, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-00255-D Document 10 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 3