Crofford v. Rudek

5:10-cv-00279 | W.D. Okla. | Jul 21, 2010


WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JEREMY DUANE CROFFORD, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-10-0279-F ) JAMES RUDEK (also spelled Ruder ) or Rudick), [1] Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ORDER This action seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by counsel. Magistrate Judge Robert E. Bacharach entered his Report and Recommendation in this matter on June 11, 2010, recommending that the petition be denied. (Doc. no. 14.) Petitioner objected to the magistrate judge’s recommended findings and conclusions. (Doc. no. 19.) Accordingly, the court reviews the matter de novo . Petitioner has also moved for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. no. 18.) The lack of need for an evidentiary hearing is addressed in the Report.

After careful study of petitioner’s objections, the Report, the record, the relevant legal authorities, the court concurs with the magistrate judge’s determinations. The court further finds that no purpose would be served by repeating the magistrate judge’s determinations or by presenting any additional analysis here.

Petitioner’s objections to the Report are DENIED . Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED . The result recommended by Magistrate Judge Bacharach in his Report is ACCEPTED , ADOPTED and AFFIRMED . The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED .

Dated this 21 st day of July, 2010. 10-0279p003.wpd -2-


[1] The Report and Recommendation spells the respondent’s name “Rudick,” and this is how it is spelled in the petition. Petitioner’s more recent filings spell the respondent’s name “Ruder.” The appearance filed by Mr. Self on respondent’s behalf spells the warden’s name “Rudek.” “Rudek” currently appears in the caption on the court’s docket sheet.