Case Name: Joshua Robert BENTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael ADDISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-02
Citations: 624 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 15-5076
Parties: Joshua Robert BENTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael ADDISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 667–667

Head Matter:
Joshua Robert BENTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael ADDISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-5076.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 2, 2015.
Joshua Benton, Lexington, OK, pro se.
Matthew D. Haire, Diane L. Slayton, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL
TERRENCE L. O'BRIEN, Circuit Judge.
Congress decided'to pretermit meritless 28 U.S.C. § 2254 litigation. Habeas petitioners have the burden to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The law requires us to predetermine whether "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for, that matter, agree that) [a habeas] 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotations omitted). It does not require or even expect a detailed explanation at every turn and this case does not deserve one.
The district court issued a thorough and legally sound 30-page order addressing and denying each of Joshua Benton's claims. Benton makes no effort to demonstrate how or why the court got it wrong; he merely reiterates the arguments he raised below.
Because no jurist of reason could reasonably debate the correctness of the result reached by the district court, we DENY a COA and DISMISS this matter. The district court permitted Benton to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees. But only prepayment is excused, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Benton is required to pay all filing ($5.00) and docketing fees ($500.00). Payment must be made to the Clerk of the District Court.