Hood v. Jeffreys

• Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-03020
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

EDWARD HOOD,

Petitioner, 4:25CV3020

v. ORDER ROB JEFFREYS, Director of Nebraska Department of Correctional Services; MIKE HILGERS, Nebraska Attorney General; and CRAIG GABLE, Warden of Reception and Treatment Center,

Respondents.

On January 24, 2025, petitioner Edward Hood (“Hood”) filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hood is currently serving 73 to 75 years in Nebraska state prison for charges arising from a fatal, head-on car accident he caused in on December 7, 2013, near Oshkosh, Nebraska. See State v. Hood, 917 N.W.2d 880, 884 (Neb. 2018). He contends his “conviction and sentence were imposed upon him by the State of Nebraska in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States of America.” The Court referred this matter (Filing No. 3) to a magistrate judge1 “for initial supervision, review, and recommendation.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (authorizing district courts to refer certain dispositive matters to magistrate judges for assistance). The magistrate judge ordered (Filing No. 4) respondents Rob Jeffreys, Mike Hilgers, and Craig Gable (collectively, “respondents”) to either file an answer to Hood’s petition or move for

1The Honorable Ryan C. Carson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. He further ordered the respondents to file all state records relevant to the petition. On May 29, 2025, the respondents filed those records (Filing No. 9) and moved for summary judgment (Filing No. 8), arguing that Hood’s “habeas petition is time-barred.” Hood did not respond. The Court again referred the matter to the magistrate judge for review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Now before the Court is the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 12) recommending the Court grant the respondents’ motion for summary judgment. After careful review, the magistrate judge agrees with the respondents that Hood’s petition is barred by the pertinent statute of limitation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The magistrate judge further “finds no reason to toll the limitations period or excuse its procedural bar.” See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013); Walker v. Norris, 436 F.3d 1026, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006). Finally, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court not issue a certificate of appealability under the circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), (c)(2); Fed. R. App. 22(b)(1); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Section 636(b)(1) gives the parties fourteen days to object to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation. Accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); NECivR 72.2(a). Neither party objected within the time permitted. Although § 636(b)(1) ordinarily requires the Court to “make a de novo review of . . . specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” the absence of any objections makes further review unnecessary. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991); Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he failure to file objections eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the district court.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); NECivR 72.2. That being the case here, IT IS ORDERED: l. The magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 12) is accepted in its entirety. Any objections are deemed waived. 2. Respondents Rob Jeffreys, Mike Hilgers, and Craig Gable’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 8) is granted. 3. Petitioner Edward Hood’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Filing No. 1) is denied, and this case is dismissed with prejudice. 4. No certificate of appealability will issue. 5. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Order. Dated this 12th day of August 2025. BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. Chief United States District Judge