United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Covington
AMUL R. THAPAR, District Judge.
Petitioner Gregory Wayne Chipman filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that his conviction violated the Fourteenth Amendment due to a number of procedural errors in his indictment and trial, as well as ineffective assistance from trial and appellate counsel. R. 1. Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Chipman's petition because it is a second or successive petition. R. 4. Chipman objected to Judge Smith's R&R, but conceded that this is a second or successive petition. R. 5 at 1 (conceding that Magistrate Judge Smith accurately recited procedural history and current posture). Accordingly, the Court will adopt Judge Smith's R&R as the opinion of the Court and transfer Chipman's petition to the Sixth Circuit.
In his objection to the R&R, Chipman complains that Judge Smith did not examine the record or address his petition on the merits. R. 5 at 2. Judge Smith's R&R notes that Chipman filed at least two prior § 2254 petitions. R. 4 at 4. He filed an unsuccessful petition in 2005, and a second unsuccessful petition in 2007. Id. at 2-3. Chipman concedes that Judge Smith correctly recited the procedural history of this case, including his prior petitions. R. 5 at 1. Chipman must receive authorization from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals before he can file a second or successive § 2254 petition-and before the Court can address the merits of his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Chipman did not receive the required authorization. As a result, the Court must transfer his petition to the Sixth Circuit. In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The R&R, R. 4, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
(2) Chipman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, R. 1, is TRANSFERRED to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, ...