Smith v. Covington

Full title: GERALD R. SMITH, Petitioner, v. LARRY COVINGTON, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division Lexington

Date published: Sep 8, 2011

Civil No. 10-336-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Sep. 8, 2011)

Opinion

Civil No. 10-336-GFVT.

September 8, 2011

ORDER

GREGORY TATENHOVE, District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [R. 1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Gerald Smith. Consistent with local practice, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith for initial screening and preparation of a report and recommendation. Judge Smith filed her Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Petitioner's Petition be denied without prejudice based on his failure to comply with the Court's orders and otherwise prosecute the case.

In this case, the Petitioner was specifically advised that any objections to the R R had to be filed within fourteen days. He did not object and the time for doing so has expired. 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)(c). But, 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's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6^th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and it agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

The record clearly demonstrates a complete failure on the Petitioner's part to comply with court orders or make any attempt to prosecute his case. He was expressly warned that his failure to correct certain deficiencies with his pleadings could result in dismissal of his Petition. [ See R. 3.] Although that Order was returned as undeliverable [ see R. 4], it is the Petitioner's responsibility to keep the Court informed of his current address. His failure to do, as noted by Judge Smith, is further evidence of his failure to advance this case.

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

(1) The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 6] is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court;

(2) The Petitioner's § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corp is DISMISSED without prejudice;

(3) The Petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [R. 2] is DENIED; and,

(4) This matter is STRICKEN from the Court's active docket.