Fairchild v. Hughes

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: 1) The 27 Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court; 2) Fairchild's 1 Petition is DENIED; 3) No certificate of appealability shall issue; 4) a separate Judgment shall follow. Signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 11/13/23.(JLS)cc: CORand Ronald C. Fairchild by US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
(at Ashland)
RONALD C. FAIRCHILD,
Petitioner,
v.
CRAIG HUGHES,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 0:22-CV-051-CHB
ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
RECOMMENDED
DISPOSITION

*** *** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition filed by United States
Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram, which recommends that Petitioner Ronald C. Fairchild’s pro
se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [R. 1] be denied and that no
certificate of appealability be issued. See [R. 27].
Magistrate Judge Ingram issued his Recommended Disposition after consideration of the
full record, including Fairchild’s Petition [R. 1], the Answer in Opposition to Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus filed by Respondent Craig Hughes, Warden [R. 21], 1 and Fairchild’s Reply [R.
26].

In the Recommended Disposition, Magistrate Judge Ingram detailed Fairchild’s state

procedural history and the grounds of error Fairchild now argues in his Petition. See [R. 27].
Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Ingram concluded that Fairchild has not satisfied the standards to
obtain relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. See id. at 26.
Magistrate Judge Ingram advised the parties that any objections were required to be filed
within fourteen (14) days of the Recommendation’s entry on September 5, 2023. Id. at 27. The
As noted by Magistrate Judge Ingram, “[t]he Warden initially argued the petition was untimely, but
ultimately conceded timeliness.” [R. 27, p. 1] (citing [R. 12]; [R. 14]; [R. 15]; and [R. 17]); see also [R.
21, p. 3] (“Respondent is not arguing that Fairchild’s petition is barred by the statute of limitations.”).
1

-1-

time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the
Recommendation nor sought an extension of time to do so.
Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the
Recommended Disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no
objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Parties who fail to object to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition are also barred from
appealing a district court’s order adopting that recommended disposition. See United States v.
White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir.
1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with Magistrate Judge
Ingram’s recommendation to deny Fairchild’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and to deny a
certificate of appealability under § 2253.
Specifically regarding a certificate of appealability, such may issue “only if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–484 (2000). A “substantial showing” means a
showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. “Where a district court has
rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is
straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. Relatedly, “[w]hen the
district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s
underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists

-2-

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. In this case, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Ingram’s
conclusion that reasonable jurists could not debate whether Fairchild’s Petition should have been
resolved differently. Therefore, the Court finds that Fairchild has not made a “substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right” under § 2253(c)(2), and as a result, a certificate of
appealability should not issue.
Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition [R. 27] is ADOPTED as the opinion
of this Court.
2. Fairchild’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [R. 1] is
DENIED.
3. No certificate of appealability shall issue.
4. A separate Judgment shall follow.
This the 13th day of November, 2023.

-3-