Riddles v. Bridges

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL RAY RIDDLES, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-00482-JD
)
CARRIE BRIDGES, Warden, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner Michael Ray Riddles, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking habeas relief from a state
court conviction. [Doc. No. 1]. The Court referred the matter to United States Magistrate
Judge Shon T. Erwin for proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). [Doc. Nos.
4, 7].
Judge Erwin ordered a response to the petition. [Doc. No. 8]. As part of that order,
Judge Erwin ordered Respondent to analyze the grounds alleged in the petition and to
include any supporting documents relied upon by Respondent. [Id. at 1]. Respondent
timely responded to the Court’s order. [Doc. No. 12]. Petitioner filed a reply. [Doc. No.
19].
On November 18, 2025, Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation
analyzing Petitioner’s claims. [Doc. No. 20]. In a detailed and lengthy Report and
Recommendation, Judge Erwin recommended that the Court deny the § 2254 habeas
petition.
Case 5:25-cv-00482-JD Document 22 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Judge Erwin advised the parties of their right to object to the Report and
Recommendation by filing an objection with the Clerk of Court by December 5, 2025,
and explained that failure to timely object to the Report and Recommendation waives
appellate review of the recommended ruling. [Id. at 27]. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72.
Respondent did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation or request
an extension of time to do so.
Petitioner filed a 42-page document entitled “Motion for De Novo Review” and
certified under the prison mailbox rule that he deposited his motion in the mail on
December 2, 2025. [Doc. No. 21]. Upon review, the Court construes this as Petitioner’s
timely objection to the Report and Recommendation and not as a motion.
“[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must
be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or
for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir.
1996). A specific objection “enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—
factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Id. at 1059. The Court
reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.”).
The Court will construe Petitioner’s objections liberally because he is proceeding
pro se, but the Court cannot serve as Petitioner’s advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
Case 5:25-cv-00482-JD Document 22 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 4

3
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
As outlined above, the Court will conduct a de novo review of any portion of the
Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner has properly objected, i.e., which
“specifically identif[ies] any legal or factual errors on the part of the magistrate judge.”
Paulsen v. Christner, No. 21-1367, 2022 WL 2165858, at *1 (10th Cir. June 16, 2022)
(unpublished) (citing 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d at 1060). Petitioner’s objections, however,
simply reassert arguments in support of his petition, as evidenced by the fact that the
majority of his objections are excerpts of his appellate brief to the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals. [Compare Doc. No. 21 at 4–15, 18–26, 29–39, with Doc. No. 12-2 at
14–25, 26–34, 35–45].
Petitioner does not identify legal or factual errors in the Report and
Recommendation. The only reference specifically to the Report and Recommendation or
Judge Erwin’s findings is that Petitioner states, in his opening paragraph, that “Magistrate
Shon T. Erwin failed in his obligation to properly administer justice.” [Doc. No. 21 at 1].
Accordingly, Petitioner has not properly lodged specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation, thus failing to preserve issues for this Court’s de novo review or for de
novo review upon appeal.
The Court, therefore, reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the precedent upon which it
relies, the Court finds no clear or obvious error in the Report and Recommendation’s
findings and recommendations. See Paulsen, 2022 WL 2165858, at *2 (concluding that
an examination of the record and relevant precedents “revealed no clear or obvious error
Case 5:25-cv-00482-JD Document 22 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 4

4
in any of the recommendations set out in the R & R”).
The Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ACCEPTS the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 20], DENIES Petitioner’s petition [Doc. No. 1], and
DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. A separate judgment will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of May 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00482-JD Document 22 Filed 05/04/26 Page 4 of 4