due process rights.” Id. Doc. 31 at 4. The district court adopted the recommendation and denied the petition. Id. Doc. 35 at 3. II. Discussion On review of the denial of a petition for habeas corpus, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo. See Patterson v. Knowles, 162 F.3d 574, 575 (10th Cir.1998). Mr. Mayberry argues that he has a liberty interest in his earned good-time credits even though the DOC now asserts they were not validly earned. We agree with Mr. Mayberry. Oklahoma “has created a liberty interest in earned credits and an inmate is entitled to due process protection prior to the loss of those credits.” Waldon v. Evans, 861 P.2d 311, 313 (Okla.Ct.Crim.App.1993); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Under Oklahoma law, once good-time credits
recognizing a parents right to rear his or her children without state interference as a constitutionallyprotected fundamental liberty interest holding that when state provides right to good time and specifies method of forfeiture inmate has constitutionallyprotected liberty interest entitling him to procedures designed to ensure that the statecreated right is not arbitrarily abrogated holding that state statutes which merely establish procedures and do not mandate any particular substantive result do not give rise to a statecreated liberty interest holding that inmates have no constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in access to grievance procedure holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right