Summary
holding that "pro se status, lack of education, or lack of legal training," are insufficient to establish "cause" (citing Bonilla v. Hurley, 370 F.3d 494, 498 (6th Cir. 2004))
Summary of this case from Allen v. United StatesOpinion
ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-223
03-24-2014
ANTHONY ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent.
FINAL ORDER
Before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10). In his Petition, the pro se Petitioner alleges violations of his constitutional rights in relation to his 1985 convictions in the Circuit Court for the County of Chesterfield for murder, two counts of robbery, and using a firearm in the commission of murder and robbery. As a result of his convictions, he was sentenced to an active period of incarceration for seventy years in the Virginia state penitentiary.
The matter was referred for disposition to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), Local Civil Rule 72, and the April 2, 2002 Standing Order on Assignment of Certain Matters to United States Magistrate Judges. In a Report and Recommendation entered on February 11, 2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be granted and that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The parties were advised of their right to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation.
On February 28, 2014, the Court received Petitioner's objections. Respondent has elected to waive any response to these objections, and the time to do so has expired.
Having reviewed the record and Petitioner's objections, and having made de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to, this Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation on the grounds stated by the Magistrate Judge and ADOPTS and APPROVES the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) in its entirety as the Court's own opinion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10). It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondent.
The Petitioner is hereby notified that he may appeal from the Judgment entered pursuant to this Final Order by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Court at the Walter E. Hoffman United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, within thirty days from the date Judgment is entered. Because the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1), the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to the Petitioner and to counsel of record for the Respondent.
It is so ORDERED.
________________
Arenda L. Wright Allen
United States District Judge
Date: March 24, 2014
Norfolk, Virgini