Kate v. Royal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SLINT KATE, )
a/k/a Slint K. Tate, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-411-G
)
TERRY ROYAL, Warden, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
On March 4, 2026, Petitioner Slint Kate, a/k/a Slint K. Tate, a state prisoner
appearing pro se, filed this action 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 Chris M. Stephens for initial proceedings.
On March 6, 2026, Judge Stephens issued a Report and Recommendation (“R. &
R.,” Doc. No. 7), in which he recommended dismissal of the pleading upon preliminary
review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts. In the R. & R., Judge Stephens advised Petitioner of his right to object to
the R. & R. by March 27, 2026. Judge Stephens 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 R. & R.
As of this date, Petitioner has not submitted an objection to the R. & R. or sought
leave for additional time to do so.
Case 5:26-cv-00411-G Document 8 Filed 04/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 7) is ADOPTED in its
entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice. A separate judgment shall be entered.
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts requires 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00411-G Document 8 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 2