Tharrington v. Director, V.A. Dept. of Corrections, No. 3:2014cv00720 - Document 17 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., on 07/30/2015. (ccol, )

Download PDF
Tharrington v. Director, V.A. Dept. of Corrections Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division RONALD A. THARRINGTON, JR., Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. 3:14CV720 DIRECTOR, VA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Ronald A. Tharrington, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1) challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake (hereinafter "Circuit Court"). On April 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Tharrington has filed objections. For the reasons that follow, Tharrington's objections will be OVERRULED and the Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND The Magistrate Judge made the following findings and recommendation: Upon review of the record before the Court, the Court determines that Tharrington actually challenges two separate judgments of the Circuit Court, although he attempts to mislead the Court to believe that he only challenges a judgment entered on November 17, 2010. (§ 2254 Pet. 2.)' Tharrington's lack of candor complicates this Court's review of the action and, ordinarily, the proper course would be to deny the action without prejudice for Tharrington to resubmit as two separate § 2254 Petitions. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, and because Tharrington's § 2254 Petition is clearly barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the Court reviews his § 2254 Petition as submitted. ' The Court finds no judgment ofconviction inthe record dated November 17, 2010. Dockets.Justia.com

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.