Anderson v. Stolley

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 12/04/2015. Copy mailed to Petitioner.(tjoh, )

:•

DEC - 4 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

CLERK. U-o L;!.

Richmond Division

'i: 11.,, e: 0

PiCHi.UjI\:_y, VA

RONNIE LESHA ANDERSON,

Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:14CV847-HEH

V.

DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action)
Ronnie Lesha Anderson, a Virginia inmate proceedingpro se, filed this petition

for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 3). On October
28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate

Judge recommended that the Court grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and find
Anderson's § 2254 Petition barred by the relevant statute of limitations. The Magistrate

Judge advised Anderson that he could file objections within fourteen (14) days after the
entry of the Report and Recommendation. Anderson has not responded.
"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 of those 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 districtjudge 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 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) will be granted. Anderson's claims and
the action will be dismissed. The § 2254 Petition will be denied. The Court will deny a
certificate of appealability.

An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

^

/s/

Henry E. Hudson

Date:*Q

W20LS

Richm^d, Virginia

United States District Judge