Sanders v. Bridges

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RANDALL SANDERS,
Petitioner,
-vs-
CARRIE BRIDGES,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) 	NO. CIV-24-1158-HE
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Petitioner Randall Sanders, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). On December 10, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending the habeas corpus petition be denied.
Within the time permitted by the court, petitioner filed an objection to Report and
Recommendation.1 	In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court has a de novo
review of the matter. Having done so, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis
regarding petitioner’s claims. 	The court need not repeat that analysis here. 	The court
concludes 	that 	petitioner’s 	arguments 	are 	without 	merit. 2 	The 	Report 	and
Recommendation will be adopted in its entirety.
1 Petitioner also filed a motion [Doc. #32] seeking leave to file an additional 13 pages in support
of his objection. The motion will be granted.
2 Additionally, the court concludes that any issues and theories first raised in the objection are
deemed waived. See Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996).
Case 5:24-cv-01158-HE Document 34 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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 petitioner. Where the court has rejected petitioner’s constitutional claims
on the merits, the petitioner, to obtain a certificate of appealability, must show that
“reasonable jurists would find the [] court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Where the court has
denied the claims on procedural grounds without reaching the merits, the petitioner must
show, “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 [] court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 	Id. 	Here, the court
concludes petitioner cannot make the required showing. A certificate of appealability will
therefore be denied.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, petitioner’s motion [Doc. #32] seeking to
file an additional 13 pages is GRANTED and petitioner’s petition [Doc. #1] for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is also
DENIED.
A separate judgment will be entered.
Case 5:24-cv-01158-HE Document 34 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-01158-HE Document 34 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3