Walker v. Masquelier

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WALTER EDWARD WALKER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-65-G
)
JOHN MASQUELIER, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
On January 15, 2026, Petitioner Walter Edward Walker, a state prisoner appearing
pro se, filed a petition 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 Shon T. Erwin for initial proceedings.
On March 10, 2026, Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
8), in which he recommended that the pleading be dismissed as untimely filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d). In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Erwin advised Petitioner of
his right to object to the Report and Recommendation by March 27, 2026. Judge Erwin
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 Report and
Recommendation.
The Report and Recommendation was mailed to Petitioner at the address on file
with the Court. As of this date, Petitioner has not submitted an objection to the Report and
Recommendation or sought leave for additional time to do so.
Case 5:26-cv-00065-G Document 9 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 2

2
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 8) is ADOPTED, and the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED as untimely filed. A
separate judgment shall be entered.
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts require 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 7th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00065-G Document 9 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 2