Arwood, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al

Filing 12

ORDER: it is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate's 11 Recommended Disposition as to Hubert Ray Arwood, Jr. is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court; 2. Arwood's 1 petition is DENIED; 3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; 4. Arwood&# 039;s 3 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot; & 5. JUDGMENT in favor of the Respondent will be entered contemporaneously herewith & this matter will be STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on June 9, 2015. (MWZ) cc: COR (Pet via U.S. Mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
HUBERT RAY ARWOOD, JR.,
Petitioner,
V.
RUSSELL D. ALDRED and
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 15-56-GFVT-EBA

ORDER

*** *** *** ***
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.
This 9th day of June, 2015.

2