Jenkins v. Lilley
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-09613
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jenkins v. Lilley, Judge Woods denied Jenkins’s federal custody petition after adopting a magistrate judge’s unopposed recommendation.
Terrell Jenkins’s § 2254 petition was denied. The respondent received judgment, the case was closed, and Jenkins was denied fee-free appeal status and a certificate of appealability.
What happened
In Jenkins v. Lilley, Terrell Jenkins filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and dismissing the case.
Jenkins requested more time to object to that recommendation, and the court extended his deadline to June 16, 2025. No objection was filed by the deadline, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Woods adopted the recommendation and denied Jenkins’s petition. The court also denied fee-free appeal status and a certificate of appealability, directed the clerk to enter judgment for the respondent and close the case, and ordered that Jenkins receive the order and judgment.
The detailed version
- Jenkins v. Lilley · No. 1:23-cv-09613
- Gregory Woods
- June 24, 2025
Background
Terrell Jenkins petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a procedure for asking a federal court to review certain custody-related claims. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the reasons supporting the petition.
Report and Recommendation
On May 19, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a report and recommendation advising the district court to deny Jenkins’s petition and dismiss the action. Jenkins asked for a 14-day extension to submit objections. The court granted the request and extended the deadline to June 16, 2025, warning that failing to object could waive objections and prevent appellate review.
Court’s Decision
No timely objection was filed. The court therefore reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record, and found none. It accepted and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. For the reasons stated in that report, the court denied Jenkins’s § 2254 petition.
The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose. It also denied a certificate of appealability because Jenkins had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the respondent, close the case, and mail Jenkins a copy of the order and judgment.
Classification Basis
This is a procedural order because the opinion itself resolved the petition through clear-error review and adoption of the report and recommendation without analyzing the underlying habeas claims. The report’s detailed reasoning is not included in the opinion text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.