Landry v. Carter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DOMINIC JAMEL LANDRY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1285-SLP ) WARDEN CARTER, ) ) Respondent. ) O R D E R Petitioner, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, has filed a Petition [Doc. No. 1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and challenges the execution of his federal sentence. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7] (R&R) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin upon referral of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing the Petition because Petitioner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner was advised that he could object to the R&R on or before December 11, 2025, and that failure to timely object could result in the waiver of his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues raised. Id. at 4. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed, nor has an extension of time in which to object been sought or granted. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has waived further review of all issues addressed in the R&R. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in the R&R and adopts the same. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R [Doc. No. 7] is ADOPTED in its entirety and the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate Judgment of Dismissal shall be entered contemporaneously with this Order.! IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of December, 2025. SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ' Because Petitioner is a federal prisoner, he does not need a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of his § 2241 petition. See Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2015). Therefore, the Court need not consider whether to issue a COA in this case.