UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ————— FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. □ Norfolk Division 6} AUG 4.9 2025 | DEANDRE JOHNSON, #1999377, ee | CLERK, US. DISTRICT COUR Ere OE □□□□ Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 2:20cv474 CHADWICK S. DOTSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent. FINAL ORDER This matter is before the Court following remand from the Fourth Circuit to consider Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 74. Presently before the Court is Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 83. The Petition was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Civil Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. ECF No. 80. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed July 1, 2025, recommends that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 83, be granted, and that the eight remaining ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims be dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 93 at 47. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.! Respondent has not responded to Petitioner’s objections and the time to do so has expired. The Court, having reviewed the record and examined the objections filed by Petitioner to the Report and Recommendation, and having made de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to, does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in

The Court considers Petitioner’s objections as filed on July 7, 2025, the date he certifies he placed the document in the prison’s mailing system. See ECF No. 95 at 11; Houston v. Lack, AOTTTO 944 970 979 (1082) favnlaining the nriean majlhox rule) The Court received and

the Report and Recommendation filed July 1, 2025. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 83, be GRANTED, and that Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondent. Finding that the procedural basis for dismissal of Petitioner’s § 2254 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.

(c); see Rules Gov. § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Cts. 11(a); Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(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 thirty (30) 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 forward a copy of this Order to Petitioner and to counsel of record for the Respondent. It is so ORDERED. nes A. fed nited States District Judge Norfolk, Virginia DATE: August 19, 2025