Barbour v. Virginia Department of Corrections at WRSP

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 7 Motion to Dismiss filed by Gene M. Johnson; 22 Report and Recommendations. Petitioner's objection is OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS AND APPROVES the findings and recommendations in the report of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on 6/21/10 and it is ORDERED that the petition be DENIED AND DISMISSED as the petition is procedurally defaulted. It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 7/28/10; Copy ECF to counsel and mailed to pro se on 7/29/10. (kgri)

Download PDF
Barbour v. Johnson Doc. 24 FiLED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Norfolk Division FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINI|A JUL 2 8 2010 CLERK, U.S^ DISTRICT COURT NOHPOLK VA KENNETH EDWARD BARBOUR, #323278, Petitioner, v. ACTION NO. 2:09cv302 Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent. FINAL ORDER GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, This matter was initiated by petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition alleges violation of federal rights pertaining to Petitioner's conviction in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636<b)(l)<B) and (C) , Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for report and recommendation. The report of the magistrate judge was filed on June 21, 2010, recommending each party was dismissal of the petition. By copy of the report, advised of his right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Court received Petitioner's Objection. received no response from Respondent. On July 1, 2010, the The Court (Doc. No. 23.) The majority of Petitioner's Objection was unintelligible. The Court discerns judge's only report one objection to the merits of the magistrate and recommendation. Specifically, Dockets.Justia.com Petitioner states that he has demonstrated cause that excuses his claims from being procedurally defaulted. Petitioner does not allege facts that constitute cause, but rather he summarily states that cause exists. in his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge addressed the limited exceptions to procedural default and found that "Barbour failed to establish the requisite cause for his failure to comply with the applicable state procedural rules." The Court agrees, and Barbour has not alleged facts in his Objection that change the Court's analysis. Accordingly, Petitioner's objection is OVERRULED. The Court, having reviewed the record and examined the objections filed by Petitioner to the magistrate judge's report, and having made de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to, does set hereby forth ADOPT in the AND APPROVE report of the the findings United and recommendations States Magistrate Judge filed on June 21, 2010, and it is, therefore, ORDERED that the petition be DENIED AND DISMISSED as the petition is procedurally defaulted. It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent. Petitioner may appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to this final order by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of this Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of such judgment. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the Court, pursuant to Rule 22(b) declines to issue a 537 U.S. of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, certificate of appealability. 322, 335-36 (2003) . spp Miller-El v. Cockrell, The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Final Order to Petitioner and to counsel of record for Respondent. MarkS. Davis United States District Judge DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES Norfolk, Virginia July 3ft , 2010

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?