Hellstrom v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 5:2008cv00381 - Document 8 (E.D. Ky. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) 7 Findings of Fact and Recommendations is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; 2) 4 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 3) Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; 4) All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; 5) This action is STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 9/15/2009.(SCD)cc: COR

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON LEIF ERIC HELLSTROM, ) ) ) Civil Action No. 5:08-cv-381-JMH ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ) Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Respondent. ** ** ** ** ** This matter is before the Court on the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge James B. Todd [Record No. 7]. Said action was referred to the magistrate for the purpose of reviewing the merit of Petitioner s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Record No. 1] concerning his conviction in Jessamine Circuit Court on or about June 27, 1994. Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss [Record No. 4] on the grounds that Petitioner s request for relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and Petitioner has filed a Response, stating his opposition thereto [Record No. 6]. The Magistrate Judge filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Report and Recommendations on June 16, 2006 [Record No. 7]. Petitioner has not filed objections to the Recommendation, and the deadline for filing objections has passed. Generally, a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, when the petitioner fails to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation, as in the case sub judice, [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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Consequently, this Court adopts the reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation as its own. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: (1) that the Magistrate Judge s Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations [Record No. 7] shall be, and the same hereby is, ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; (2) that Respondent s Motion to Dismiss [Record No. 4] shall be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and (3) that Petitioner s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Record No. 1] shall be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED; (4) that all pending motions shall be, and the same hereby are, DENIED AS MOOT; and (5) that this action shall be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN from the Court s active docket. This the 15th day of September, 2009.

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.