From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Andrews

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division
Oct 30, 2020
ACTION NO. 2:20cv163-RGD-DEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2020)

Opinion

ACTION NO. 2:20cv163-RGD-DEM

10-30-2020

EMMANUEL O. ROBINSON (#76119-083), Petitioner, v. J. ANDREWS, Warden FCC PETERSBURG, Respondent.


FINAL ORDER

This matter was initiated by petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges disciplinary proceedings that resulted in him losing 27 days of good conduct time. He seeks to have the incident report expunged from his disciplinary record and restoration of the good conduct time that was disallowed.

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 of the Magistrate Judge was filed on September 28, 2020 recommending dismissal of the petition, with prejudice for failure to allege a violation of due process. By copy of the report, each party was advised of his right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. The Court has received no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the time for filing objections has now expired.

Accordingly, the court does hereby accept the findings and recommendations set forth in the report of the United States Magistrate Judge filed September 28, 2020, and it is, therefore ORDERED that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 6) be GRANTED, and that the petition be DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of merit.

Respondent initially filed a Motion to Dismiss, however, the court converted Respondent's Motion into a Motion for Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 13 at 1-3. --------

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.

/s/_________

Robert G. Doumar

Senior United States District Judge Norfolk, Virginia
October 30, 2020


Summaries of

Robinson v. Andrews

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division
Oct 30, 2020
ACTION NO. 2:20cv163-RGD-DEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2020)
Case details for

Robinson v. Andrews

Case Details

Full title:EMMANUEL O. ROBINSON (#76119-083), Petitioner, v. J. ANDREWS, Warden FCC…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division

Date published: Oct 30, 2020

Citations

ACTION NO. 2:20cv163-RGD-DEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2020)