Lazaro Pozo-Illas v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

E.D. Kentucky

Lazaro Pozo-Illas v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

DecidedOctober 15, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00293

StatusUnknown

This text of Lazaro Pozo-Illas v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Lazaro Pozo-Illas v. Commonwealth of Kentucky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lazaro Pozo-Illas v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, (E.D. Ky. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington)

LAZARO POZO-ILLAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 5:25-CV-293-CHB ) v. ) ) ORDER ) COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ) ) Defendant. ) )

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Candance J. Smith. [R. 5]. The Report and Recommendation addresses the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, filed by Plaintiff Lazaro Pozo-Illas. [R. 1]. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the petition challenges Plaintiff’s judgment of conviction from the Jefferson Circuit Court. See [R. 5, p. 1]. Because he challenges a conviction that was rendered in a county that falls within the Western District of Kentucky, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this action be transferred to that district. Id. at 1–2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen days. Id. at 2–3. The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation nor sought an extension of time to do so. 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). 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 Judge’s recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that recommended disposition. United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court being sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action, including the § 2254 petition, [R. 1], and related Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit, [R. 3], is TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, for further consideration. This the 15th day of October, 2025.

(ori. ousBoone See ees COURT JUDGE Qe EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF as KENTUCKY

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington)

LAZARO POZO-ILLAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 5:25-CV-293-CHB ) v. ) ) ORDER ) COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ) ) Defendant. ) )

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Candance J. Smith. [R. 5]. The Report and Recommendation addresses the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, filed by Plaintiff Lazaro Pozo-Illas. [R. 1]. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the petition challenges Plaintiff’s judgment of conviction from the Jefferson Circuit Court. See [R. 5, p. 1]. Because he challenges a conviction that was rendered in a county that falls within the Western District of Kentucky, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this action be transferred to that district. Id. at 1–2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen days. Id. at 2–3. The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation nor sought an extension of time to do so. 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). 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 Judge’s recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that recommended disposition. United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court being sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action, including the § 2254 petition, [R. 1], and related Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit, [R. 3], is TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, for further consideration. This the 15th day of October, 2025.

(ori. ousBoone See ees COURT JUDGE Qe EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF as KENTUCKY

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lazaro Pozo-Illas v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazaro-pozo-illas-v-commonwealth-of-kentucky-kyed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack