Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arwood v. Aldred

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington

June 9, 2015

HUBERT RAY ARWOOD, JR., Petitioner,
v.
RUSSELL D. ALDRED and COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Respondents.

ORDER

GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court pending review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Edward B. Atkins [R. 11] filed herein on April 13, 2015. Consistent with local practice, the Report and Recommendation addresses Arwood's writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Recommendation concludes that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. It also advises the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service or waive the right to further appeal. [ Id. at 3-4]. As of this date, neither party has filed objections or sought an extension of time to do so.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a recommended disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, however, this Court is not required to "review... a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard...." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and it agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition. Furthermore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court determines that reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Arwood's § 2255 motion debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Also pending is Arwood's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [R. 3]. In compliance with Judge Atkins' order, [R. 9], Arwood has now paid the filing fee, [R. 10]. As such, his motion shall be denied as moot.

Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate's Recommended Disposition [R. 11] as to Hubert Ray Arwood, Jr. is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;

2. Arwood's petition [R. 1] is DENIED;

3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED;

3. Arwood's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [R. 3] is DENIED as moot; and

4. JUDGMENT in favor of the Respondent will be entered contemporaneously herewith and this matter will be STRICKEN from the Court's active docket.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.