Murphy v. Leu, No. 2:2022cv00110 - Document 16 (E.D. Va. 2022)

Court Description: FINAL ORDER. It is ORDERED that the Court hereby ADOPTS AND APPROVES the findings and recommendations set forth in the 15 Report of the United States Magistrate Judge filed June 24, 2022, and it is, therefore, ORDERED that Respondent's 10 Mo tion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, Murphy's petition is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice, and judgment shall be entered in favor of the Respondent. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Petitioner is ADVISED that he may seek a certific ate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510 within sixty (60) days. Signed by District Judge Roderick C. Young on 7/20/2022. Copies mailed 7/20/2022. (jmey, )

Download PDF
Murphy v. Leu Doc. 16 Case 2:22-cv-00110-RCY-DEM Document 16 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 100 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division ANDREW RAYMOND MURPHY, #92006-083, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 2:22cv110 DAVID LEU, Warden, FCI Petersburg-Low, Respondent. FINAL ORDER This matter was initiated by petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Andrew Raymond Murphy (“Murphy” or “Petitioner”). Murphy’s petition alleges a denial of due process in the calculation of his federal sentence. Specifically, he seeks restoration of good time credits that he lost due to a violation of prison policy. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for report and recommendation. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed June 24, 2022 recommends Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Murphy’s petition be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 15). The Report and Recommendation also advised parties of their right to object and the time limit for doing so. The Court has received no objections, and the time for filing objections has now expired. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS AND APPROVES the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge filed June 24, 2022, and it is, therefore, ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) is 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00110-RCY-DEM Document 16 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 101 GRANTED, Murphy’s petition is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice, and judgment shall be entered in favor of the Respondent. Finding that the basis for dismissal of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is not debatable, and alternatively finding that Petitioner has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); see Rules Gov. § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Cts. 11(a); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–85 (2000). Petitioner is ADVISED that because a certificate of appealability is denied by this Court, he may seek a certificate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Fed. Rule App. Proc. 22(b); Rules Gov. § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Cts. 11(a). If Petitioner intends to seek a certificate of appealability from the Fourth Circuit, he must do so within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. Petitioner may seek such a certificate by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Final Order to Petitioner and provide an electronic copy of the Final Order to counsel of record for Respondent. Richmond, Virginia Date: July 20, 2022 /s/ Roderick C. Young g ict Judge United States District 2

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.