Walls v. Johnson, etc., No. 2:2008cv00500 - Document 19 (E.D. Va. 2009)

Court Description: FINAL ORDER construing document received from petitioner on 4/24/09, entitled "Response to Motion to Dismiss" as objections to 17 Report and Recommendation; adopting and approving the findings and recommendations set forth in 17 Report and Recommendation; denying and dismissing the petition on the basis of petitioner's procedural defaults in the state system and on the merits; directing judgment be entered in respondent's favor; noting appeal procedures; declining to issue certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 6/1/09. Copy mailed to petitioner, ECF to counsel, 6/2/09.(mwin, )

Download PDF
Walls v. Johnson, etc. Doc. 19 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT jum -1 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ?m Norfolk Division CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT ROBERT WALLS, JR., ' NORFOLK. VA #335576, Petitioner, 2:08CV500 v. GENE H. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent. FINAL ORDER 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 convictions on June 25, Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia, 2004, in the Circuit for robbery and assault. As a result of the convictions, petitioner was sentenced to serve eight years in the Virginia penal The system. matter was referred to pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. a United States § 636{b)(1)(B) Magistrate and (C), Judge and Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for report and recommendation. The Magistrate Judge filed his report recommending dismissal of the petition on April 6, the report, 2009. By copy of each party was advised of his right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. received from petitioner on April 24, 2009, The Court a document entitled "Response to Motion to Dismiss," which is construed as objections to the report. The Court, having reviewed the record and examined the objections filed by the petitioner and having made de novo findings with respect to the portions objected recommendations set to, does forth in hereby the adopt Report and of approve the United the findings and States Magistrate Dockets.Justia.com Judge. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the petition be DENIED and DISMISSED on the basis of petitioner's procedural defaults in the state system and on the merits and that judgment be entered in respondent's favor. To the extent that petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions regarding his ineffective objections are without merit. credible evidence. counsel assistance of counsel claims, the None of petitioner's claims are supported by- To the contrary, to withdraw petitioner's the record reflects efforts by defense guilty plea and also reflects favorable treatment of petitioner through the dismissal of charges against him by the Commonwealth Attorney. There is no evidence of coercion or undue influence being used against petitioner to prompt a guilty plea. Petitioner was well- represented. Petitioner may appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to this Final Order by filing a written Court, United States Courthouse, within thirty days failed to demonstrate Rules appealability. of of appeal with the wa substantial Therefore, Appellate showing the Court, Procedure, See Miller-El v. Clerk of this 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, from the date of entry of such judgment. constitutional right." Federal notice the denial pursuant to Rule 22(b) declines Cockrell. of Petitioner has 123 to issue S.Ct. a 1029, of of the certificate 1039 a of (2003). The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Final Order to petitioner and to counsel of record for the respondent. .. /s/ Rebecca Beach Smith United States District Judge UNITED STATES Norfolk, Virginia \ , 2009 DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.