IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division TIMOTHY R. SMITH (#1359591),

Petitioner, v. Case No.2:24-cv-675

CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

FINAL ORDER This matter was initiated by petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

submitted by pro se Petitioner Timothy R. Smith (“Smith” or “Petitioner”). Smith is a VDOC offender currently incarcerated at Deerfield Correctional Center, serving a 23-year sentence for his convictions in the Clarke County Circuit Court for first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit a felony, and use of a firearm in commission of a felony. The matter 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. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed September 12, 2025, recommends that the court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and that Smith’s petition be denied and his claims dismissed with prejudice for being time-barred, and because no plausible claim of equitable tolling or actual innocence excuses his untimely filing.The Report and Recommendation advised each party of their right to object and the time limit for doing so. The Report and Recommendation was not returned to the court as undeliverable.The court has received no Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for responding has now expired. Accordingly, the court does hereby accept and adopt the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed September 12, 2025, and it is therefore ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 14) is GRANTED, and that Smith’s petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Finding that the 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 is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Final Order to Petitioner and to provide an electronic copy of the Final Order to counsel of record for Respondent. It is SO ORDERED.

Elizabeth W. Hanes United States District Judge Norfolk, Virginia Date: October 17, 2025