Quintero Leal v. Warden of Diamondback Correctional Facility

1
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER
Carlos Daniel Quintero Leal is the named petitioner in a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. However, the Petition was signed and
submitted by Petitioner’s wife, Banesa Valdivia. [Doc. No. 1, at 4]. The matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin for initial proceedings in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). [Doc. No. 3].
On February 20, 2026, the magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner had not signed
the Petition and that Ms. Valdivia had not shown she was authorized to sign the Petition on
Petitioner’s behalf. [Doc. No. 5]. The magistrate judge directed Petitioner to file an
amended petition, and pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis, on or
before March 5, 2026. Id. at 6. The magistrate judge warned that “[f]ailure to comply with
this Order may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice to re-filing.” Id.
To date, Petitioner has not filed an amended petition, paid the filing fee, or sought
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 18, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a
Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 6], in which he recommends that the Court dismiss
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CARLOS DANIEL QUINTERO LEAL, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-259-D
)
WARDEN OF DIAMONDBACK 	)
Case 5:26-cv-00259-D Document 7 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
without prejudice Petitioner’s habeas action for failure to comply with the Court’s February
20, 2026 Order. In his report, the magistrate judge notified Petitioner of his right to file an
objection to the report on or before April 1, 2026, and that the failure to object waives
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. 6] in its entirety.
For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	therein, 	this 	action 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 nd day of April, 2026.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00259-D Document 7 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 2