-REW Lickliter v. Chandler, No. 5:2008cv00313 - Document 19 (E.D. Ky. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED: (1) 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED; (2) Lickliter's Petition for Writ 1 is DISMISSED; (3) no cert of appealability shall issue. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 10/06/2011.(GLD)cc: COR, Phillip Lickliter, pro se

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON PHILLIP LICKLITER, ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 08-CV-313-JMH ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ) ) Plaintiff, v. WARDEN LARRY CHANDLER, Defendant. ** This matter ** is before ** ** the Court ** on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier [Record No. 18]. Said action was referred to the magistrate for the purpose of reviewing the merit of Plaintiff Lickliter s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Record No. 1], in which he challenges his conviction in a Kentucky state court. Defendant filed an Answer and Memorandum in Opposition [Record No. 16] to the Petition. Defendant made no response thereto. In his thorough and well-articulated Recommended Disposition, the Magistrate Judge concludes that none of the thirteen grounds for relief submitted by Lickliter merit relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and recommends that the Petition be dismissed and that no certificate of appealability should issue. The Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation was entered in the record on September 15, 2011, advising Lickliter that particularized objections to same were due within fourteen days of the date of service of the Report and Recommendation or further appeal would be waived. Fourteen days have now expired, and Lickliter has filed no objections. 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. U.S.C. § 636. 28 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 conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard. or legal 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 Recommended Disposition of Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier [Record No. 17] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; (2) that Lickliter s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Record No. 1] is DISMISSED; and (3) that no certificate of appealability shall issue. This is the 6th day of October, 2011.

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.