Birdsong v. Ponton

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 3/10/2015. (sbea, )

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

CHARLES A. BIRDSONG,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:14CVI31

V.

HENRY PONTON,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charles A. Birdsong, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1) challenging his
convictions of a variety of institutional infractions at the Nottoway Correctional Center. On
January 9,2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that recommended

denying the § 2254 Petition and dismissing the action because Birdsong had failed to state a

viable claim for habeas relief. The Court advised Birdsong that he could file objections within
fourteen (14) days after the entry ofthe Report and Recommendation. Birdsong moved for an
extension oftime to file objections. By Memorandum Order entered on February 10,2015, the

Court granted Birdsong an extension ofeleven (11) days from the date ofentry thereof to file
objections. More than eleven (11) days have elapsed since the entry ofthe February 10,2015
Memorandum Order and Birdsong has not filed objections.
"The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this

court." Estrada v. Witkowski, 816 F. Supp. 408,410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber,

423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination ofthose portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to

focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—^that are at the heart of the parties' dispute."
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). In the absence of a specific written objection, this
Court may adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation without conducting a de novo review.

See Diamond v. Colonial Life &Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).
There being no objections, the Report and Recommendation will be ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED. The § 2254 Petition will be DENIED and the action will be DISMISSED.

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) for lack of exhaustion will be DENIED AS
MOOT. The action will be DISMISSED.

An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date:

Richmond, Virginia

James R. Spencer
Senior U. S. Dislrict Judge