Opinion ID: 812350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Abuse of Discretion Claims

Text: Mr. Kinkead raises two additional arguments in his brief. He first argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. Aplt. Br. 23. In so asserting, Mr. Kinkead contends that “his claimed constitutional violations . . . require an evidentiary hearing by due process to prove or disprove the set of facts that he challenges that his confinement as unlawful. Id. “A district court’s decision to grant or deny an evidentiary hearing in a habeas proceeding is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Hooks v. Workman, 606 F.3d 715, 731 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). Because each of Mr. Kinkead’s claims can be resolved on the basis of the record alone, the district court did not abuse its discretion. Mr. Kinkead then argues that the district court abused its discretion when his case was assigned to a magistrate judge, but the magistrate never issued a report and recommendation. Aplt. Br. 3. We find nothing in the docket sheet to indicate that this case was assigned to a magistrate. R. 1–4. As such, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in deciding the matter without the assistance of a magistrate judge. -9- We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr.