Johnson v. Shelby County Detention Center et al, No. 3:2010cv00007 - Document 12 (E.D. Ky. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. MRR [Record No. 10] is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED by reference. 2. Johnson's petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 [Record No. 1] is DENIED. 3. This habeas proceeding shall be DISMISSED, without prejudice, and STRICKEN from the docket. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 09/07/2010.(AKR)cc: COR, petitioner
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. Shelby County Detention Center et al Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Frankfort) DOUGLAS C. JOHNSON, Petitioner, V. SHELBY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 3: 10-07-DCR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER *** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner Douglas C. Johnson’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Record No. 1] Consistent with local practice, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). After a preliminary review of the petition, the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation on August 19, 2010, recommending that the matter be dismissed. [Record No. 10] More specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that the petition should be dismissed, without prejudice, because the Petitioner failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and because he has failed to provide the Clerk of the Court with his current address. Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Although this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations to which objection is made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), -1- Dockets.Justia.com “[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 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, having examined the record and having made a de novo determination, the Court is in agreement with the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Record No. 10] is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED by reference. 2. Johnson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Record No. 1] is DENIED. 3. This habeas proceeding shall be DISMISSED, without prejudice, and STRICKEN from the docket. This 7th day of September, 2008. -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
