King v. Bottoms et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) in accordance with the 23 Recommended Disposition of Mag Judge Smith, the clerk shall substitute LaDonna Thompson, Commission, Kentucky Department of Corrections as the Respondent; (2) the Recommended Disposition is ACCEPTED & ADOPTED; (3) that King's construed amendment to the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS WITHDRAWN; (4) the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (5) no certificate of appealability will issue. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 3/17/14.(KJR)cc: COR, Jamell King (US Mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
JAMELL M. KING,
Department of Corrections,
Civil Case No.
Disposition entered by Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith. [D.E.
23]. Said action was referred to the magistrate for the purpose
of reviewing the merit of Petitioner King’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [D.E. 1]. Following
an initial review of the petition, the Court ordered Petitioner
to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed as untimely
[D.E. 3], to which Petitioner responded. [D.E. 8]. Petitioner
filed what was construed as an amendment to his petition [D.E.
4], but later elected to proceed on the original petition. [D.E.
concludes that Petitioner’s filing of the Writ was untimely,
and, thus, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be denied and this matter dismissed.
The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation
particularized objections to same were due within fourteen days
or further appeal would be waived. That time has now expired,
and Petitioner has filed no objections.
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.@
28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1).
However, when the petitioner fails to
file any objections to the Recommended Disposition, as in the
case sub judice, A[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.@
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Consequently, this Court adopts
the reasoning set forth in the Recommended Disposition as its
“A certificate of appealability 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). In
order for a certificate to issue, Petitioner must be able to
show that reasonable jurists could find in his favor, and the
“question is the debatability of the underlying constitutional
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 342 (2003).
In this case, reasonable
motion or conclude that the issues presented are adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further. See id.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
that, in accordance with the Recommended Disposition
of Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith [D.E. 23 at 1 n.1], the
Clerk SHALL substitute LaDonna Thompson, Commissioner, Kentucky
Department of Corrections, as the Respondent in this matter;
that the Recommended Disposition of Magistrate Judge
Candace J. Smith [D.E. 23] be, and the same hereby is, ACCEPTED
that King’s construed amendment to the petition [D.E.
that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [D.E. 1]
be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
that no certificate of appealability will issue.
This the 17th day of March, 2014.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?