govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-00625-0

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
KEITH WESLEY EDWARDS, ) 
 ) 
 Petitioner, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-00625-JD 
 ) 
MERYDITH EASTER, et al., ) 
 ) 
 R e s p o n d e n t s . ) 
 
ORDER 
 
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) of United States 
Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield. [Doc. No. 8]. For the reasons outlined below, the 
Court accepts the Report and Recommendation. 
I. ANALYSIS 
Petitioner is a pro se state pre-trial detainee who filed a petition for habeas corpus 
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1; see also Doc. No. 8 at 1 n.1]. He alleges he is being 
improperly detained in connection with state court criminal proceedings and seeks a 
release from custody. [See Doc. No. 1; see also Doc. No. 8 at 1 n.1]. 
Petitioner filed an Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. [Doc. No. 
6]. The Court referred the matter to Judge Maxfield for initial proceedings consistent with 
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). [Doc. No. 4]. The R. & R. found that Petitioner has 
sufficient resources to pay the filing fee and recommended denying Petitioner’s 
Application. [Doc. No. 8 at 2]. The R. & R. further recommended that if Petitioner does 

2 
 
not pay the $5.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of any order 
adopting the R. & R., then the habeas action should be dismissed without prejudice. [Id.]. 
The R. & R. advised Petitioner of his right to object by May 18, 2026, and warned 
that failure to file a timely objection would waive the right to appellate review of the 
factual and legal issues in the R. & R. [Id. at 3]. Petitioner did not file a timely objection 
and instead filed an objection on June 5, 2026. [Doc. No. 9]. Petitioner mailed the 
objection on June 2, 2026. [Doc. No. 9-1 at 1]. 
“[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must 
be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or 
for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 
1996). By not timely objecting to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a 
party waives his right to challenge the legal and factual basis for the magistrate judge’s 
decision. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Our waiver 
rule provides that the failure to make timely objection to the magistrate’s findings or 
recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.”). 
Petitioner did not file an objection to the R. & R. by the deadline of May 18, 2026, 
and thus waived his right to challenge the recommended disposition. Nor did Petitioner 
seek an extension of time to file an objection. “The waiver rule as a procedural bar need 
not be applied when the interests of justice so dictate.” Moore, 950 F.2d at 659. However, 
considering the factors, the interests of justice do not warrant an exception to the waiver 
rule in this case. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010) 
(explaining that the court may grant relief from the waiver rule for failure to timely object 

3 
 
to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in the “interests of justice” by 
considering factors such as a pro se litigant’s effort to comply, the force and plausibility 
of the explanation for the party’s failure to comply, and the importance of the issues 
raised). 
Alternatively, even if the Court were to consider Petitioner’s untimely objection, 
the Court finds that Judge Maxfield did not commit factual or legal errors in her 
recommendation that the Court deny his Application. An objection must be specific “to 
preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” 2121 
E. 30th St., 73 F.3d at 1060. In Petitioner’s late-filed objection, he states that “[t]he fees 
are waived” and cites 28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Doc. No. 9 at 1]. The Court notes that certain 
provisions of § 1915 do not apply to § 2241 cases. The Tenth Circuit has held that 
“§ 2241 proceedings, and appeals of those proceedings, are not ‘civil actions’ for 
purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(2) and (b).” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 
F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997). However, § 1915(a)(1) still applies to § 2241 cases, thus 
Judge Maxfield appropriately analyzed Petitioner’s Application under that section and 
concluded that, pursuant to Petitioner’s statement of assets, he had not demonstrated an 
inability to pay. [Doc. No. 8 at 2]. See, e.g., Al-Pine v. Richerson, 763 F. App’x 717, 721 
& n.5 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (granting application to proceed in forma pauperis 
on appeal under § 1915(a)(1) in a § 2241 case). Petitioner also objects that the R. & R. 
“misplace[s] this action.” [Doc. No. 9 at 1]. However, as the R. & R. correctly noted, 
Petitioner would have to file an amended petition if he sought to change the nature of his 
claims. [See Doc. No. 8 at 1 n.1]. Petitioner has not done so. 

4 
 
II. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R. & 
R. [Doc. No. 8]. The Court, therefore, DENIES Petitioner’s Application for Leave to 
Proceed In Forma Pauperis. [Doc. No. 6]. The Court will dismiss this action without 
prejudice to refiling if Petitioner does not pay the $5.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of 
this Court within 21 days of this Order, or by June 30, 2026. See LCvR3.3(e). 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of June 2026. 
 

Passage view · GavelSight