Becton v. Zook, No. 3:2015cv00512 - Document 17 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 8/15/2016. (sbea, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Becton v. Zook Doc. 17 p IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i r AUG 1 5 2016 L E r\\ ^j O FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT Richmond Division RICHMOND. VA MAURICE J. BECTON, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. 3:15CV512 WARDEN ZOOK, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Maurice James Becton, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1), challenging his convictions of five counts of grand larceny and five counts of breakingand entering while armed. On July 26,2016, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be granted and the § 2254 Petition be denied. (ECF No. 16.) The Court advised Bectonthat he could file objections within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Report and Recommendation. Becton 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 determination remains with this court." Estrada v. Witkowski, 816 F. Supp. 408,410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citingMathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of thereport or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "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 ofthe parties' dispute." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). In the absence of a specific written objection, this Dockets.Justia.com Court may adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation witliout 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, the Report and Recommendation will be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) will be GRANTED. The § 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. Becton's claim and the action will be DISMISSED. 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)(1)(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). A petitioner satisfies this requirement 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)). Becton fails to meet this standard. A certificate of appealability will therefore be DENIED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. M.Hannah AUG 1 5 2016 Richmond, Virginia United States 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.
