Stepp v. Lane

Full title: CHAD AARON STEPP, Petitioner, v. TIM LANE, WARDEN, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky

Date published: Apr 24, 2023

22-cv-00076-GFVT-CJS (E.D. Ky. Apr. 24, 2023)

Opinion

22-cv-00076-GFVT-CJS

04-24-2023

CHAD AARON STEPP, Petitioner, v. TIM LANE, WARDEN, Respondent.

Gregory F. Van Tatenhove United States District Judge

ORDER

Gregory F. Van Tatenhove United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith. [R. 10.] On July 19, 2022, Mr. Stepp petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. [R. 1.] Consistent with local practice, Judge Smith reviewed the motion and prepared a report and recommendation. [R. 10.]

After considering the record, Judge Smith determined that Mr. Stepp is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because his petition is untimely. Specifically, Judge Smith found that Mr. Stepp had one year from the date on which his judgment became final to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 3-4. Mr. Stepp's conviction became final when the time to seek appellate review of his conviction expired, which was December 16, 2016. Id. at 4. Therefore, Judge Smith found that Mr. Stepp had until December 16, 2017, to file his petition. Id. However, he did not file his petition until July 11, 2022. Id. Moreover, Judge Smith found no extraordinary circumstances that would entitle him to equitable tolling of the limitations period. Id. at 5-6.

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 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 Report and Recommendation. Furthermore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court determines that reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Mr. Stepp's § 2254 petition debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

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

1. The Magistrate's Report and Recommendation [R. 10] is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;

2. Mr. Stepp's § 2254 petition [R. 1] is DISMISSED;

3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and

4. JUDGMENT in favor of the Respondent will be entered contemporaneously herewith and this matter will be STRICKEN from the Court's active docket.