Brown v. Johnson, No. 2:2008cv00544 - Document 15 (E.D. Va. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER does hereby ADOPT AND APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in the report of the United Stated Magistrate Judge filed on 3/3/09, and it is, therefore ORDERED that the petition be DENIED AND DISMISSED as the claims are procedurally defaulted and without merit. It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent. Petitioner's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice is therefore DENIED. Appeal procedures noted. Signed by District Judge Jerome B. Friedman and filed on 4/7/09. Copy mailed on 4/8/09 (lhow, )

Download PDF
Brown v. Johnson Doc. 15 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGI JIA Norfolk Division APR -7 ?OGD CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT I-K. VA MICHAEL RAY BROWN, #369717, Petitioner, v. ACTION NO. 2:08cv544 GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent. FINAL This matter was initiated by petition corpus under 28 U.S.C. federal 2004, (1) rights ORDER § 2254. pertaining to for a writ of habeas The petition alleges violation of Petitioner's convictions on May 28, in the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, count of statutory burglary and one (1) of one count of grand larceny, as a result of which he was sentenced to serve a total of ten years in prison, seven The matter was pursuant to the (7) years and six referred to provisions of of the Federal Rules the of the States Rules United months suspended. a United States 28 Rule 72(b) (6) U.S.C. of Civil § Magistrate Judge 636(b)(l)(B) magistrate dismissal of judge was the petition. filed District By on March copy of and (C), Procedure and Rule 72 Court for District of Virginia for report and recommendation. the (10) the 3, Eastern The report of 2009 report, the of recommending each party was advised of his right to file written objections to the findings and Dockets.Justia.com recommendations made by the magistrate judge. the Court received recommendation. On April 6, Petitioner's On March 13, objections to the The Court received no response 2009, the Court received 2009, report and from Respondent. Petitioner's motion for examined the voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The Court, objections and having objected reviewed the filed by Petitioner to made to, de does recommendations Magistrate having novo set Judge ADOPT forth filed in with AND the on March and the magistrate findings hereby record respect APPROVE judge's to the report 3, of and it portions findings the 2009, the report, United is, and States therefore, ORDERED that the petition be DENIED AND DISMISSED as the claims are procedurally defaulted and without merit. that judgment motion for be entered voluntary in favor dismissal of It is further ORDERED Respondent. without Petitioner's prejudice is therefore DENIED. Petitioner may appeal this final order by filing Clerk of this Court, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, entry such of substantial Therefore, of the Court, Appellate the judgment entered pursuant a written notice of United States Courthouse, judgment. showing from of within thirty Petitioner the denial pursuant Procedure, to has of Rule declines (30) to of issue the from the date of to demonstrate constitutional 22(b) with 600 Granby Street, days failed a appeal to right." the Federal a "a Rules certificate of appealability. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Final Order to Petitioner and to counsel of record for Respondent. /s/ {, Jerome B. Friedman UNITED'STATES DISTRXCT JUDGE Norfolk, Virginia April 7 , 2009

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.