Alger C. Ferguson v. Shannon Butrum, Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 0:25-cv-00081
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION ASHLAND

ALGER C. FERGUSON, )

) Plaintiff, ) No. 0:25-CV-81-REW-MAS

) v. )

) ORDER SHANNON BUTRUM, WARDEN, )

) Defendant. )

*** *** *** ***

Plaintiff Alger C. Ferguson, pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See DE 1. Ferguson challenges his state court murder conviction, alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and asserting that the trial court erred in failing to hold a Faretta hearing after he chose to represent himself. See DE 1 at 6–10; DE 1-1 at 1–2. Notably, this is the third § 2254 petition that Ferguson has filed with the Court. See Ferguson v. Adams, No. 0:20-CV-127 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 20, 2020); Ferguson v. Adams, No. 5:21- CV-022 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 21, 2021). United States Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett, on referral, recommended that the Court transfer Ferguson’s petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether the petition may proceed. See DE 6 at 4. Judge Stinnett informed Ferguson of his right to object to the recommendation within fourteen days. See id. at 4–5. He warned Ferguson that a failure to properly and timely object would cause him to lose his right to further appeal or review. See id. Ferguson then moved for an extension of time to file his objections. See DE 8. While the Court granted the motion—permitting him until November 2, 2025, to file—Ferguson’s deadline has long since passed. See DE 9. In considering a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court must review de novo the “portions of the report or specified proposed findings” to which any party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). But the Court is not required to “review... a magistrate’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 United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949— 50 (6th Cir. 1981) (holding that a failure to file objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation waives the right to appellate review). The Court has considered the Recommended Disposition, as well as the entire record and relevant authority, and agrees with Judge Stinnett’s careful analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS DE 6, and TRANSFERS Ferguson’s § 2254 petition, see DE 1, to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration of whether the petition may properly proceed. This the 21st day of November, 2025. Kage. Signed By: © Robert E. Wier TW ‘= United States District Judge