Lennear v. Wilson

Filing 12

FINAL ORDER. It is ORDERED that the Court does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the 9 Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the Court's own opinion. The Respondent's 5 Rule 5 Answer seeking denial and dismissal of the Petition is GRANTED, and the Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondent. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 3/13/2018. Copies mailed 3/13/2018. (jmey, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

NICHOLAS LENNEAR,

#56510-018,

CLERK, US DiSTRiCT COURT
NOP^OI.K. VA

Petitioner,
V.

Civil Action No.

ERIC D.

2:17cvl35

WILSON,

Respondent.
FINAL

ORDER

Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,

ECF

No.

1,

filed

pursuant

to

Respondent's Rule 5 Answer.
his

28

U.S.C.

ECF No.

institutional conviction for

5.

§

2241,

and

the

Petitioner challenges

"Conduct which disrupts to the

orderly running of the institution most like engaging in a group
demonstration,"

Petitioner,
of

ECF

No.

1

at

12,

as

among other sanctions,

Good Conduct

a

lost

result

of

which

twenty-seven

(27)

the

days

Time.

The matter was referred for disposition to a United States

Magistrate

Judge

Federal Rule of

the

April

Matters

to

2,

Magistrate

Civil

2002

United

Recommendation

pursuant

28

U.S.C.

Procedure 72(b),

Standing
States

entered

Judge

to

on

Order

Magistrate
February

recommended

that

§§

Local

on

636(b)(1)(B)-(C),
Civil Rule 72,

Assignment

Judges.

In

6,

ECF

the

2018,

relief

a

of

and

Certain

Report

and

No.

9,

the

sought

by

the

Respondent's

and the

Rule

5

Answer

(denial

and

dismissal)

be

granted,

Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

The

parties were advised of their right to file written objections
to

the

Report

and Recommendation.

Court received the

notes

in

its

February

21,

Petitioner's objections which,

Response

Recommendation,

On

to

Plaintiff's

2018,

the

as Respondent

Objection

to

Report

and

appear to have been timely filed insofar as the

postmark on Petitioner's submission reflects a date of February
22,

2018.

United States v.

(4th Cir.
10,

11

2013)

at

fn.

(discussing
1.

On

McNeill,

523 F.

App'x 979,

"prison mailbox rule").

March

7,

2018,

the

Court

Respondent's response to Petitioner's objections.
The

Court,

having

reviewed

the

record

ECF

981
Nos.

received

the

ECF No. 11.

and

examined

the

objections filed by Petitioner to the Report and Recommendation,
and

the

made ^

Respondent's

response

to

those

objections,

and having

novo findings with respect to the portions objected to,

does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the Report and Recommendation,

No. 9, in its entirety as the Court's own opinion.

ECF

Accordingly,

the Respondent's Rule 5 Answer seeking denial and dismissal of
the Petition,
1,

ECF No.

5,

is GRANTED,

and the Petition,

is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

It

is

ECF No.

ORDERED that

judgment be entered in favor of the Respondent.
The Petitioner is hereby notified that he may appeal from
2

the judgment entered pursuant to this Final Order by filing a
written notice

Walter E.
Norfolk,
judgment

of

appeal

with

the

Clerk

Hoffman United States Courthouse,
Virginia 23510,
is

demonstrate

entered.

a

within thirty
Because

substantial

the

of

Appellate

of

22(b)(1),

Court

days

Petitioner

showing

Procedure

the

The

322,

335-36

Clerk

the

has

denial

§ 2253(c)

the

failed

Court

of

declines

to

Cockrell,

to

forward a

copy of

this

Order to

I t i s so ORDERED.

M
Mark S. Davis

United States District Judge
Mark S.

Davis

United States District Judge

^

a

and Federal

the Petitioner and counsel of record for the Respondent.

Date:

to

(2003).

is DIRECTED

Norfolk, Virginia

the

from the date

issue a certificate of appealability. See Miller-El v.
537 U.S.

at

600 Granby Street,

(30)

constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Rule

of