Ratliff v. Beckstrom

Filing 17

OPINION & ORDER: (1) Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition 16 is adopted as and for the opinion of the Court; (2) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) Pursuant to 28:2253(c), certificate of appealability shall not issue; (4) Pursuant to 28:1915, Petitioner may not appeal in forma pauperis; (5) Judgment be entered herewith. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 1/9/2014. (CMR) cc: COR, Nick Ratliff by U.S. Mail.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION at ASHLAND

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-35-KSF
NICK R. RATLIFF
v.

PETITIONER
OPINION & ORDER

GARY BECKSTROM, Warden,
Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex

RESPONDENT

***********
On March 5, 2013, petitioner, Nick R. Ratliff, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Kentucky state court convictions of Intentional
Murder and Criminal Abuse in the First Degree [DE #1]. Consistent with local practice, this matter
was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
On December 11, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation that the
petition be denied on various grounds [DE #16]. First, the Magistrate Judge determined that Ratliff
had procedurally defaulted on seven of his claims because they were not timely raised in the state
courts. The Magistrate Judge found that the limited exceptions allowing federal review of claims
denied by the state courts on procedural grounds were not applicable in this case.
Next, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed each of Ratliff’s remaining claims in
accordance with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. After reviewing each of these claims, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Kentucky
courts’ decisions were not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, and did not result in a decision that
1

was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(1)-(2).
Neither Ratliff nor the Respondent filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Disposition and the time for same has passed. Although this Court must make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to which objection is
made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Moreover, a
party who fails to file objections with the Court to a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and
recommendation waives the right to appeal. See Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (6th
Cir. 1986). Nevertheless, the Court, having examined the record, is in agreement with the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
In determining whether a certificate of appealability should issue as to Ratliff’s claims, the
Court turns to Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), for guidance. In that case, the United States
Supreme Court held that
[w]here a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the
showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) [governing the issuance of certificates of
appealability] is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong.
Id. at 484. In the present case, the Court determines that Ratliff has not presented a close call or one
which is “debatable.” Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue.
Accordingly, the Court, being otherwise fully and sufficiently advised, HEREBY ORDERS
that:
2

(1)

the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition [DE #16] is
ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court;

(2)

the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [DE #1] is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

(3)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a certificate of appealability shall not issue;

(4)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Petitioner may not appeal this Order in
forma pauperis; and

(5)

judgment will be entered contemporaneously herewith.

This January 9, 2014.

3