Jenkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 08/04/2017. Copy mailed to Petitioner.(ccol, )

~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
RAYMOND JENKINS, JR.,
Petitioner,

l

COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA,

AUG ~[lJ

)
)
)

Respondent.

1

1

)
)

)
)

lfi

CLERK. U.S. 01SIM1CT COUR1
RlCHMOMD VA

)

v.

[ic;

Civil Action No. 3:16CV345-HEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action)
Raymond Jenkins, Jr., a former Virginia inmate proceeding prose, filed this
petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. I)
challenging the calculation of his sentence by the Virginia Department of Corrections.
On July 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be
granted, Jenkins's claim be dismissed, and the§ 2254 Petition be denied as meritless.
(ECF No. 19.) The Court advised Jenkins that he could file objections within fourteen
(14) days after the entry of the Report and Recommendation. Jenkins 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 detennination 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)). 1bis 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)(l). "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, and the Court having determined that the Report and
Recommendation is correct on its merits, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19)
will be accepted and adopted. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) will be granted.
Jenkins's§ 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1) will be denied. Jenkins's claim and the action will
be dismissed. A certificate of appcalability will be denied. 1
An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Isl
HENRY E. HUDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Aus.4

2011
Date:
1
Richmond, Virginia

1

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a
certificate of appealability ("COA''). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l )(a). A COA will not issue unless a
prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when "'reasonable jurists could debate whether
(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."' Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).
Jenkins fails to meet this standard. Accordingly, the Court will deny a certificate of
appealability.
2