Austin Channing McGraw v. Scott Jordan

District Court, E.D. Kentucky

Austin Channing McGraw v. Scott Jordan

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION ASHLAND

)

)

AUSTIN CHANNING MCGRAW, )

) Crim. No. 0:23-cv-00015-GFVT-MAS Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) SCOTT JORDAN, ) & ) ORDER Defendant. ) ) )

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations filed by United States Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett. [R. 12.] The recommendation instructed the parties to file any particularized written objections within fourteen days from the date of service, or else waive the right to further review. Id. No party has objected and the time to do so has passed. 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 recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that report and recommendation, so long as the magistrate judge gave notice to the parties that objections must be filed within a set number of days. United States v. Walters,

638 F.2d 947, 949-50

(6th Cir. 1981). Magistrate Judge Stinnett did so when he informed the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen days from the date of service thereof or further appeal is waived. [R. 12.] Satisfied that these requirements are met, this Court has examined the record and it agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition.

Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Judge Stinnett’s Report and Recommendation [R. 12] is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court. 2. Plaintiff McGraw’s

28 U.S.C. § 2254

Petition [R. 1] is DENIED. 3. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. A judgment will be entered contemporaneously herewith.

This the 27th day of October, 2025.

fs cree

Gregory F*Van Tatenhove United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown