Fairchild v. Hughes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION ASHLAND RONALD C. FAIRCHILD, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 0:22-CV-051-CHB-HAI ) v. ) ) CRAID HUGHES, Warden ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE ) JUDGE’S REPORT AND Respondent. ) RECOMMENDATION ) ) *** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram [R. 6]. The Report and Recommendation addresses the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Ronald C. Fairchild, [R. 3].

Petitioner also filed a certified statement of funds from Southeast State Correctional Complex, [R. 4], in support of his Motion.

In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Ingram correctly identified the relevant authority — 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 3(a) — at the heart of this matter [R. 6, p. 1]. Magistrate Judge Ingram highlighted that Petitioner failed to comply with the necessary requirements pursuant to § 1915 and Rule 3(a). Id. at 2. Accordingly, he recommended this Court deny Petitioner’s Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and require Petitioner to either (1) file the required affidavit or (2) submit the $5.00 fee to the Clerk of the Court within 30 days of this Court adopting Magistrate Judge Ingram’s recommended disposition. Id. Magistrate Judge Ingram’s Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days. /d. The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation nor sought an extension of time to do so.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that recommended disposition. United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [R. 6] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

2. Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [R. 3] is DENIED. Petitioner must either: 1) File the required affidavit or 2) Submit the $5.00 fee to the Clerk of the Court within 30 days of this Order.

This the 3rd day of August, 2022. SR . fy lone Hewokeo ena q ey EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF “a KENTUCKY