govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_25-cv-00943-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
GEORGE J. SEBASTIAN, 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
-vs- 
 
TOMMY SHARP, Warden, 
 
 Respondent. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) NO. CIV-25-0943-HE 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ORDER 
 Petitioner George J. Sebastia n, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended 
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S.C. § 2254 and brief in support [Doc. #18, 
Doc. #19]. He also filed a motion for special leave to assu me original jurisdiction [Doc. 
#11]. On May 6, 2026, Unite d States Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield issued a 
Report and Recommendation [Doc. #20], r ecommending the petition be dismissed with 
prejudice as untimely and the motion for specia l leave be denied as moot. She advised 
petitioner of his right to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation on or before 
May 27, 2026 and that failure to file a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation 
waives his right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues therein contained. 
 The court has received a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 
#21]. However, the objection does not raise any specific issue with regard to the magistrate 
judge’s recommended ruling that his petition is untimely. Instead, petitioner argues the 
merits of his claims in the petition. Under Te nth Circuit law, “a party’s objections to the 
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve 

2 
an issue for de novo review by the district c ourt or for appellate review.” U.S. v. One 
Parcel of Real Property, With Buildings, Appurtenances, Improvements, and Contents, 73 
F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). An objection is sufficiently specific if 
it “enables the district court to focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are 
at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Id. Here, petitioner’s objection does not address the 
one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1) or the statutory or equitable tolling 
of that period. The court concludes that petitioner has waived de novo review by the court 
with respect to the recommende d ruling. Therefore, the c ourt will adopt the Report and 
Recommendation in its entirety. 
 Even if petitioner’s objec tion should be constr ued as raising specific issue with 
respect to the timeliness of his petition or the interests of justice require the court’s de novo 
review, the court, having conducted a de novo review, concurs with the analysis of the 
magistrate judge. The court finds no need to repeat that analysis here. Therefore, the court 
will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 
 Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Secti on 2254 Cases in the United States Courts 
require the court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability (COA) when it enters a final 
order adverse to a petitioner. “When a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural 
grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underl ying constitutional claim, a COA should 
issue when the prisoner shows, at least, th at jurists of reason would find it debatable 
whether the petition states a valid claim of th e denial of the constitu tional right and that 
jurists of reason would find it debatable whet her the district court was correct in its 
procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 48 4 (2000). Here, the court 

3 
concludes that petitioner cannot make the required showing. A certificate of appealability 
will therefore be denied. 
 Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the court ADOPTS the Report and 
Recommendation [Doc. #20]. The amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 
U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as untimely. The motion for special 
leave to assume original jurisdiction [Doc. #11] is DENIED as MOOT . The court 
DENIES a certificate of appealability. 
A separate judgment will be entered. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated this 28th day of May, 2026. 
 

Passage view · GavelSight