F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 21, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
SHAWN R. CHAPMAN,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-6321
v. (D.C. No. CIV-04-719-C)
RON WARD (W. D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks habeas relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. The magistrate judge dismissed his petition as time-barred by
the statute of limitations. Report and Recommendation, 5 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 24,
2004). Petitioner did not appeal the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation even though he was advised that the deadline for filing
objections was September 12, 2004. In a September 22, 2004, Order, Petitioner
was granted an extension of time until October 13, 2004, to file his objections.
No objections were filed. On October 28, 2004, the district court entered a
separate judgment and order adopting the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation and dismissing the petition as untimely. Petitioner filed a
timely appeal in the district court on November 9, 2004.
By failing to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation, Petitioner has waived his right to appellate review of both
factual and legal determinations, unless we elect to review the merits of the
appeal based on the “interests of justice” exception. See Key Energy Resources
Inc. v. Merrill, 230 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2000); Moore v. United
States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). We do not so elect.
The issues Petitioner raises on appeal are identical to those brought before
the district court. To grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make a
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2) (1994). To meet this burden, Petitioner must demonstrate “that
reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation omitted).
We have carefully reviewed Petitioner’s brief, the district court’s
disposition, the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and the record on appeal.
Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Petitioner’s filing raises an issue
which meets our standard for the grant of a certificate of appealability. For
substantially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge and adopted by
-2-
the district court in its order of October 28, 2004, we cannot say “that reasonable
jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should
have been resolved in a different manner.” Id.
We DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and we DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-