Shileka P. Hill v. Judge Lucy Vanmeter, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON SHILEKA P. HILL, ) ) Petitioner, ) No. 5:25-CV-00464-REW-EBA ) v. ) ) ORDER JUDGE LUCY VANMETER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) *** *** *** *** Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins’s Report & Recommendation. See DE 4. The Report & Recommendation concerns Petitioner Shileka P. Hill’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody under 28 U.S.C § 2254.

See DE 1. Judge Atkins determined that Hill’s petition was deficient in several respects and directed her to refile her petition by January 31, 2026. See DE 3 (Order). Judge Atkins warned that failing to refile her petition on the court-supplied form “may result in a recommendation that her petition be denied.” See id. at 2. Hill did not refile her petition in accordance with the Order and the Rules Governing Section 2254 in the United States District Courts. As warned, Judge Atkins recommended that the undersigned dismiss, without prejudice, Hill’s § 2254 petition. See DE 4.

Judge Atkins’s Report & Recommendation advised Hill that any objections must be filed within fourteen days. See id. at 1-2. The fourteen-day objection window passed, and Hill did not file an objection. The Court is not required to “review ... a magistrate[ judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”

Thomas v. Arn, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 176 (6th Cir. 1996)) (alterations adopted) (noting that the Sixth Circuit has “long held that, when a defendant does ‘not raise an argument in his objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation he has forfeited his right to raise this issue on appeal’ ”); United States v. Olano, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture); FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(2)}(3) (limiting de novo review duty to “any objection” filed); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (limiting de novo review duty to “those portions” of the recommendation “to which objection is made”); FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b).

The Court, with no objection from Hill and on full review of the record, ADOPTS Judge Atkins’s Report & Recommendation (DE 4) and DISMISSES Hill’s § 2254 petition (DE 1) without prejudice. The Court will enter a separate Judgment.

This the 20th day of May, 2026.

Kage. Signed By: © Robert E. Wier TW “== United States District Judge